The Mannarkkad Rural Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, 8.767, Mannarkkad, Palakkad – 678 582 v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 9 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4202 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, 8.767, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD – 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURUSHOTHAMAN M.BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI – 110001. 2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER.OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI – 110001.ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SCOF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI – 110001.ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J …......….................................. W.P.(C) No.4202 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registeredunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on26.05.2021. 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 Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 2nd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut and Others[2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered bythe assessing officer though the assessment order wasrendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. WP(C) NO. 4202 OF 2022 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P4 and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner. nd respondent to 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, asexpeditiously as possible. expeditiously as possible. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall beinitiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessmentorder.initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessmentorder. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/09/02//2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4202/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED26.05.2021.Exhibit P2COPY OF THE S.O NO. 3296(E) ISSUED BY THEMINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. DATED25.09.2020.Exhibit P3COPY OF THE S.O NO. 3297(E) ISSUED BY THEMINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DATED25.09.2020.Exhibit P4COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED24.11.2021.Exhibit P5COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 24.11.2021. Exhibit P6COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT INWP(C) NO. 5849/2021 DATED 08.03.2021. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL