Court Grants Co-op Society Another Chance for Tax Exemption Reassessment; Must Contribute to Relief Fund.

The Court quashed the impugned order, granting the petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, another opportunity to address grievances in re-assessment proceedings regarding the exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was instructed to pay a sum to the Chief Justice Relief Fund and file a consolidated reply within 30 days, with a warning that failure to cooperate would result in action based on existing records. The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for compliance, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with Section 139(4) of the Act and response to notices under Section 148A(d) and Section 148.
3. Failure to participate in proceedings and assistance from Auditor.
4. Compliance with Section 144B of the Act and quashing of the Impugned Order.
5. Availability of exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) in re-assessment proceedings.
6. Requirement to pay a sum to the Chief Justice Relief Fund and participation in de-novo proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, claimed entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on interest received from Co-operative Banks. The petitioner's Auditor was blamed for not filing regular Returns under Section 139(4), leading to notices under Section 148A(d) and Section 148.

2. The petitioner, despite filing Returns post-notice, failed to participate in the proceedings and attributed this to the Auditor's failure to assist. The counsel argued non-compliance with Section 144B for issuance of the draft order, citing a previous court decision for reference.

3. The Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner neglected assessment by not filing Returns under Section 139(4) and failing to participate post-notice under Section 148. Emphasis was placed on the petitioner's non-compliance leading to the impugned order.

4. The Court, after considering submissions, ruled that the issue of exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) could not be decided under Article 226. Despite the petitioner's neglect, the Court granted one more opportunity for the petitioner to address grievances in re-assessment proceedings.

5. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum to the Chief Justice Relief Fund and participate in de-novo proceedings. Failure to cooperate would lead to action by the respondent based on available records. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was instructed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days.

6. The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for compliance, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and cooperate with the respondent. No costs were awarded, and compliance reporting was scheduled for a specific date.

---