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 Now Governs The Field Thereby Rendering Theassessment Itself As Incorrect

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 35371 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MARANCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AGED 52 YEARSTHE MARANCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.M 28, MARANCHERY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN - 679581BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE,NEW DELHI,, REPRESENTED BY THEPRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, PIN - 1100012THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI .PIN - 1100013THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AYKAR BHAVAN, WARD (4), PATHANAMTHITTA PIN - 689101BY ADV JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA ADC. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 8[th] day of November , 2022 Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner.In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deductionunder Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there wasno evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredientsof the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplatedunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 1[st] 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 now governs the field thereby rendering theassessment itself as incorrect. W.P.(C) No. 35371 of 2022 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending considerationbefore the 1[st] respondent. I deem it fit that this writ petitionbe disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to consider theappeal in a time bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2,as expeditiously as possible with a period of 2 months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of a this judgment. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. RMV Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35371/2022 EXT. P1-. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT INRESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT 2020-21. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.09.2021 IN WP(C).NO. 18004 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING TAX. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE