The Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employeesco-Operative Credit Society Limited P-630, Mannarkkad P.o.palakkad-678 582 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. 16690 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEESCO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630, MANNARKKAD P.O.PALAKKAD-678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMAN.V. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY / ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL 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. 16690 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. By theorder dated 29.03.2022, the assessing officer completed theassessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act anddisallowed the claim under Section 80P(2) of the Act. Ademand has already been made against the petitioner. 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 petitionerAdv.Harisankar V.Menon as well as the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents Sri.Jose Joseph. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out thatthere are connected matters in which this Court has alreadyissued directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose ofappeals in cases where the deduction under Section 80P ofthe Act have been sought without insisting on any deposit. 5. Having regard to the circumstances arising in thecase, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioneras Ext.P2 before the first respondent can be directed to bedisposed 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 be disposedof by the 2[nd] respondent without insisting on payment of20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is taken by the first respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall bekept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16690/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 29.3.2022. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2022. Exhibit P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2022. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE