Dated This The 25[Th] Day Of May, 2022 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax[2021 (1) Klt 485] Was Not Considered By The Assessing Officerthough The Assessment Order Was Rendered Subsequent To Thesupreme Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMASWEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944W.P.(C) NO.16573 OF 2022 PETITIONER: PARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. DENNY M.V PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 721 BY ADVS.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIRG.REMADEVIP.F.JOYRAJATH R NATHHARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER,THRISSSUR, PIN-680 001. WARD 2(4), RANGE-4, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, 2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 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.16573 OF 2022 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16573 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 26.03.2022. 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 assessing officerthough the assessment order was rendered subsequent to theSupreme Court Judgment. 3. Since petitioner has already preferred an appeal as W.P.(C) NO.16573 OF 2022 Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 3[rd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed ofdirecting the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in atime bound manner. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondentto dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at anyrate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearingto the petitioner. Till then, all coercive proceedings against thepetitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. bpr Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMASJUDGE W.P.(C) NO.16573 OF 2022 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED26-04-2022 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED26-04-2022 IN EXT.P1 APPEAL.