Nd] Respondent, Petitioner Has Sought To Canvass That Thejudgment Of The Supreme Court In Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax[2021 (1) Klt 485] Was Not Considered By The Assessing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3586 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: M/S. CHALISSERY SERVICE CO--OPERATIVE BANK LTD.P-579, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD 679 536, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. PUSHPAKARAN, VALIYAVEETUVALAPPIL KANDU. BY ADVS.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)NISHA JOHNV.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1ADDITIONAL / JOINT /DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI 110 003. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI 110 003. OTHER PRESENT: ADV.JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3586 OF 2022 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ========================W.P.(C) No. 3586 of 2022 ========================Dated this the 3[rd] day of February, 2022 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operativeSociety registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued againstthe petitioner on 25.05.2021. In the assessment order,petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P wasrejected on the ground that there was no evidence to showthat petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the PrimaryAgricultural Credit Society as contemplated under theKerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 2[nd] respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax[2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was renderedsubsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2[nd] respondent, I deem it fit that this writpetition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority toconsider the appeal in a time bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders onExt.P2, as expeditiously as possible. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3586/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OFINCOME FOR AY 2018-19 DATED 25.05.2021. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DATED 17.08.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DATED 02.08.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // True Copy // PA To Judge