Bank And Others v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calicut And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 13 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13289 OF 2021 PETITIONER : M/S. KOPPAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F.1205PULASSERI, P.O.KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.HARINARAYANAN.V.P. BY ADVS.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)V.P.NARAYANANNISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS : 1ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001.INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001.NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C).No.13289 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 13[th] day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 orderof assessment was issued against the petitioner on 13.02.2021. Inthe assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to showthat petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary AgriculturalCredit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 2[nd]respondent Appellate Authority, petitioner has sought to canvass thatthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer thoughthe assessment order was rendered subsequent to the SupremeCourt judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2[nd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a timebound manner. Accordingly there will a direction to the 2[nd] respondent toconsider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the AppellateAuthority shall not insist on deposit of 20% of the amount in disputeconsidering the nature of the case that has been pleaded by thepetitioner. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be initiatedpursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. RKM Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13289/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.02.2021 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME TAX FOR AY 2018-19 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL E- FILED DATED 14.03.2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.06.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2018-19 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.