Dated This The 5[Th] Day Of October, 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 5 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21136 OF 2021 PETITIONER: PAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO K. 831PAMPADY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 521REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRENEW DELHI, 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER.2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 0013THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 3, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21136 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 claim ofbenefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the orderof assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P3before the first respondent. It is submitted that the saidappeal is pending consideration and that in the meantimepetitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken. 2.It is the contention of the petitioner that in similarcases were the claim for deduction under Section 80P of theAct has been claimed, this Court has been consistentlydirecting the appeal itself to be disposed of, taking intoreckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court inMavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v.Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485], petitioner seeks similar directions. 3.It is true that in similar cases, this Court hasdirected the appeal to be disposed of in a time boundmanner. Petitioner also stands in the same footing andthere is no reason why a departure should be made fromthe other cases. 4.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders onExt.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously aspossible. Pending such consideration, all coerciveproceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall bekept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21136/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED18-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTFOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 17-01-2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-09-2021 IN WP(C) NO. 18004 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.