Dated This The 25[Th] Day Of May, 2022 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax[2021 (1) Klt 485] Was Not Considered By The Assessingofficer Though The Assessment Order Was Renderedsubsequent To The Supreme Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 PETITI ONER: THOTTIPPAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR, PIN-680 310 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. SHAIJU THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR, PIN-680 310 BY ADVS.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIRG.REMADEVIRAJATH R NATHHARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSSUR, PIN-680 001. 2THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),DELHI-110 001. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16830 of 2022 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioneron 30.03.2022. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim fordeduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground thatthere was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied theingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society ascontemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.2. While assailing the assessment order before the 3[rd]respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi ServiceCo-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax[2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessingofficer though the assessment order was renderedsubsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the3[rd] respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposedof directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal ina time bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within a period of six months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, allcoercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant toExt.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. bpr Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-03-2022ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-05-2022 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-05-2022 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.