By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 19 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16182 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. P 1025, KARAKURISSI, PALAKKAD, 678 595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A. JAYASREE, AGED 48, D/O. A. ANIYAN MENON. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. 2NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER.DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J …......….................................. W.P.(C) No.16182 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 19[th] day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registeredunder the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order ofassessment was issued against the petitioner on 26.03.2022.In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deductionunder Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there wasno evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredientsof the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplatedunder the Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 2nd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment 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 bythe assessing officer though the assessment order wasrendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2ndrespondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed ofdirecting the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in atime bound manner.respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed ofdirecting the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in atime bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of sixmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of sixmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall beinitiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGEAMV/19/05//2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16182/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.Exhibit P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL