Dated This The 16[Th] Day Of November, 2021 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calicut And Others_

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 16 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1943WP(C) NO. 25413 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3918, PARAVATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 507, REP.BY ITS SECRETARYBY ADVS.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1GOVERNMENT OF INDIATHE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY2THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)(FACELESS), ROOM NO.356 C.R.BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110 0023THE INCOME TAX OFFICEROFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 101 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON16.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ---------------------- W.P.(C)No. 25413 of 2021 ------------------------ Dated this the 16[th] day of November, 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 claim ofbenefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the orderof assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P2before the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that the saidappeal is pending consideration and that in the meantimepetitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken. 2. Having regard to the fact that in similar caseswhere the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Acthas been claimed, this Court has been consistently directingthe appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into reckoning thedecision rendered by the Supreme Court in MavilayiServiceCo-operativeBankandOthersv.Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]. 3.It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 OfficeMemorandum of 2016 as revised in 2017 cannot control thediscretionary powers of the appellate authority. Since theappeal is pending consideration, Ext.P4 may not have anyrelevance for the time being, in view of the nature of ordersI propose to issue in this case. 5.In similar cases, this Court has directed theappeal to be disposed of in a time bound manner. 6.Petitioner also stands in the same footing andthere is no reason why a departure should be made from theother cases. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously aspossible. Pending such consideration, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall bekept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.8.2021 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF DEMAND PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI Exhibit P2Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THEPETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED29.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OFDIRECT TAXES Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED31.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OFDIRECT TAXES Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION PREFERREDBY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 30.9.2021 WITH COVERING LETTER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.11.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3