By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21075 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE THALORE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD1-269, THALORE, THRISSUR-680 306, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.V.SHAJKUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment wascompleted by the 3[rd] respondent disallowing the claimof benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challengingthe order of assessment, petitioner has preferred anappeal as Ext.P2 before the 2[nd] respondent. It issubmitted that the said appeal is pending considerationand that in the meantime petitioner is apprehendingcoercive steps being taken. 2. Having regard to the fact that in similar cases were the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act hasbeen claimed, this Court has been consistently directingthe appeal itself to be disposed of, taking intoreckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v.Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021(1) KLT 485]. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that by Ext.P4, the assessing officer hasdemanded the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sumadjudged in Ext.P1 for the purpose of staying furtherproceedings for recovery. 4. It is a settled principle that the Office Memorandum of 2016 as revised in 2017 cannot control the discretionarypowers of the appellate authority. Since the appeal ispending consideration, Ext.P4 may not have anyrelevance for the time being, in view of the nature oforders I propose to issue in this case. 5. In similar cases, this Court has directed the appeal tobe disposed of in a time bound manner.be disposed of in a time bound manner. 6. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there isno reason why a departure should be made from theno reason why a departure should be made from the other cases. Accordingly, there will be a direction tothe 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass appropriateorders on Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner, asexpeditiously as possible. Pending such consideration,all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessmentorder shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21075/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL