The Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited P-630Mannarkkad P.o., Palakkad -678 582, Represented Secretary, Uma.n.v. By Advs.harisank v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 24 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD -678 582, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, UMA.N.V. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDL /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 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. OTHER PRESENT: SC,JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON24.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J …......…..................................W.P.(C) No. 16665 of 2022….................................. Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society, who claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961(for short the ‘Act’). By order dated 28.03.2022, theassessing officer completed the assessment under Section143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim and issued ademand. 2. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner haspreferred an appeal along with stay petition before the firstrespondent as Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. It is submitted that theappeal is pending consideration. However, apprehendingcoercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for anearly disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Harisankar V.Menon as well as the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents Sri.Jose Joseph. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed outthat there are connected matters in which this Court hasalready issued directions to the Appellate Authority todispose of appeals in cases where the deduction underSection 80P of the Act have been sought without insistingon any deposit. 5. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by thepetitioner as Ext.P2 before the first respondent can bedirected to be disposed of in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outerperiod of six months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. It is clarified that the appeal shall bedisposed of by the 2[nd] respondent without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, tilla decision is taken by the first respondent on the appeal, allrecovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment ordershall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16665/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.Exhibit P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE