Adv.harisankar v. Menon Adv.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 20 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21200 OF 2021 PETITIONER: KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P-373 MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., KUMARAMPUTHUR PALAKKAD-678 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, VIJAYAKUMAR K.K. BY ADV.HARISANKAR V. MENON ADV.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 2NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.21200/21 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21200 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registeredunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order ofassessment was issued against the petitioner on 27.08.2021. In theassessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80Pwas rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show thatpetitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural CreditSociety as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative SocietiesAct. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 3[rd]respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1)KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer though theassessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court W.P.(C) No.21200/21 Judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 3[rd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directingthe Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time boundmanner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent toconsider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously aspossible. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- vps BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE -:4:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21200/2021 PETITIONER'S/S'EXHIBITSEXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THEIST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19DATED 27.8.2021. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF WEB PAGE SCREEN SHOT EVIDENCINGTHE INABILITY TO FILE THE APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED25.9.2021. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENTDATED 22.9.2021. EXHIBIT P5COPY OF COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DATED25.9.2021. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURTIN WPC NO.9007/2021 DATED 16.7.2021.