The Kodakara Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.r761, Xi/535, Kodakara P.o.,Mukundapuram,Thrissur – 680 684 v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 39106 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE KODAKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.R761, XI/535, KODAKARA P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM,THRISSUR – 680 684, REPRESENTED BY ITSMANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJU M.V.BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI – 110 001.2NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE,DELHI – 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 & TPS,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,PALAKKAD – 678 014.ADV. JOSE JOSEPH - SC, IT DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registeredunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitionersufferred Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21. Thepetitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 applciationfor condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal. 2.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. 3.While assailing the assessment order before the 1[st]respondent, petitioner has sought to canvas that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax and another [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs thefield thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect. 4.Since the petitioner has already preferred an appealas Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2[nd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of 3 directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a timebound manner. 5.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, asexpeditiously as possible. 6.Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shallbe initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessmentorder. It is made clear that the appellate authority needs toconsider the appeal on merits only if it decides to condone thedelay of 26 days in filing the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. DK Sd/- JUDGE GOPINATH P. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39106/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DTD.28-09-2022 Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23-11-2022 Exhibit P3COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23-11-2022Exhibit P4COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23-11-2022