M/S. Mannarkkad Taluk Co-Operative Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd,No. P v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 7TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30865 OF 2022 PETITIONER: 1M/S. MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD,NO. P 629, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K. MOHANDAS, AGED 56 YEARSBY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREDELHI, PIN - 1100012NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTREDELHI,PIN - 110001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2022 Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued againstthe petitioner. In the assessment order, petitioner'sclaim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected onthe ground that there was no evidence to show thatpetitioner satisfied the ingredients of the PrimaryAgricultural Credit Society as contemplated under theKerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2.While assailing the assessment order beforethe 2[nd ]respondent, petitioner has sought to canvassthat the judgment of the Supreme Court in MavilayiService Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissionerof Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 now governs thefield thereby rendering the assessment itself asincorrect. 3.Since the petitioner has already preferred anappeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration WPC No.30865 of 2022 3 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2[nd] respondent), I deem it fit that this writ petition bedisposed of directing the Tribunal to consider the appealin a time bound manner. 4.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the2[nd ]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orderson Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible within a periodof 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment. 5.Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercivesteps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuantto Ext.P1. It is made clear that the appeal may be consideredon merits only if the appellate authority decides tocondone the delay in filing the appeal. The writpetition is disposed of as above. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30865/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-03-2022EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-09-2022EXHIBIT P3COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-09-2022EXHIBIT P4COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 06-09-2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPYP.A.TO JUDGE