Karnataka High Court
M/S Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society vs Income Tax Officer Ward-9(4) on 25 June, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 25"" DAY OF JUNE 2010
EEEORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYR%AR.VfEIi+II:>fY..
WRIT PETITION NO. 9 I 64 OF 2010 A
WP. NO. 9164/2010
BETWEEN:
M/s. Vasavi Credit CO--Operative"S.O'ciety " _
Sri. Kannika Parameshwz-.Iri TeInple 'COmplex.
8m Cross, MalleshwaI"a'Ifl_» ' I
Banga1OI*e--560 003. ' 'M _ ;
Represented by its _ '
Secretary I ' ~
Smt. N.'Paf"»*athi,..V_ '
W/O STE. 1/eII:.IgOpa'l;~...
Aged ubput40.years. I ...PETITIONER
Pl';-3.SEJ.d, Advocate)
I. '.aIneOIT ae" OffieeI' Ward--9(4)
N().v.l_/"I , Jeevzm Sampige.
' "RIC Building,
" 3*" Floor, Mal1eshw2II'2Im,
Banga10re--56U O03. CMMI .
ékauto) j Tb g
9u2.fJio«Lzui '
7, 'WWW*I e
I\.)
2. The Commissioner of income--tax
(Appeals)--V,
III Floor, }wI1\/IT Bhavan,
Ganganagar, __
Bangalore-560 032. RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. i\/I.V. Seshachala, Advocate) ' >1: :5: :';: :5: >1:
This Writ Petition is filed under A-iftiiciieiis--ie2.26 2-2_7vv::;t'.ithei'*~ Constitution of India praying to i'etriai_i1it--he respondent tro_in taking any steps for recovery 'of the'-ou'tstan:t:ihg.ta)§es3 per Annexure-A, dated 31.12.2009 £t't1§i"€tC., ._ This Writ Petition: coining; on'-for.pi'e]iminary'hearing in 'B' group this day, the Coui't"made*t_he. t',v;)1iov§/_ 5 Klfleard the'o]eart1ed"..Co1i_nsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel t'ovjthe re'spo"n§jci1ts,. 0 V' The petitioriei~ is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operartiyeSocieties Act,l959, and carries on the business of exitendirig~,«--it:re(iit facilities to its members as envisaged under tsee.tion"80P(2)(a)(i) of the Indian Income--tax Act,l96l i¥{hereinat'ter referred to as ' the Act' for brevity) . For the V iiflassessment year 2007-2008, the first respondent in his order of § L.-J assessment has arrived at a finding that the entire income of the petitioner is taxable. In an earlier instance, in l'C'SvfC)éi£:fi.V-(Bf the assessment year 2003--O4, the department hard' madei'"cee_ijtt1ii:.__V additions in the case of the petitiflonert and .;i{.K'i\.x'Vi*?.l'33Vi3i;{)l1ip[iy:'. challenged by the petitione1'»,beforeV._ Iiict3.,i1"fae{ta;<' nA¥p'pve1late Tribunal and that authority, by had set aside the assessment d.e'i'n.and been raised by the department, could be no such demand. year 2005-06, again some ia) of the Act in a sum of Rs. .09 paid to py'gi'i1y agents. it was heidudibyi the .firs.t"t:p~peiit1te authority by an order dated that eVe;1....afiei' this addition, the entire. income of the appei1,a'nt_iVxias_:e3i.eiiipted under section 8()P(2) oi' the Act. That order 1"1z1d..at't:ai'ned finality since the department did not Chose to ehziliengeii' the same by way of an appeal. There was no such ii -.diemand raised for the assessment year 2006--07. However, insofar * the assessmerit year in question namely. 2007-2()()8, where the 3 petitioner had claimed its entire income as being exemptfrom tax as before under Section 8OP(a)(i). The first his assessment order indicated a sum of Rs.50,00,3E}.S_f/-- ibcingithe----._ commission paid to "pygmy" agents iiIi}iV"()._i<;l'1]'g-1Si:3C_it'O.[iw.,40(3t)('t£1)§'..
though there are precedents ,p_ointed---ou't. e2ti']irer'-i.i.niifaivoigr of petitioner. It is this which was'i'n»t;ha}l_etiged-.heifine the appellate Commissioner.
3. The: seeking stay of operation of petitioner. The appeiiate the said application, the petitiottet. 'is for a direction to expedite conside-ra_tion 'of. the appeal and tiil such consideration to keep the ii'intpugtie'dforder in abeyance. It is this which is sought to be i'eai'Iied Counsel for the petitioner. 4"..,V_"i'"he respondents having entered appearance have filed d"state.ment of objections to vehemently oppose the petition and to = prirnariiy contend that without entering upon the merits of the 6