The Petitioner Has Approached This Courtcontending That The Said Question Has Not Been Goneinto By The Assessing Officer And That, It Is A Clearviolation Of The v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Andanother; 431 Itr 1. The Petitioner Has Along Withi.a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 6 DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7120 OF 2023 PETITIONER: 1UDAYANAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTDNO.1321 UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686143 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYBY ADV C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-2, SHASTRI ROAD KOTTAYAM P.O, PIN - 6860012INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.7120 of 2023 T.R. RAVI, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C.) No.7120 of 2023------------------------------------ Dated this the 06[th] day of March, 2023JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against the assessment order produced as Ext.P1 and thedemand notice issued pursuant to the assessment.The assessment relates to the assessment year 2020-21. The only question that is involved is whether thepetitioner’s Society is entitled to the benefit of Section80P. 2. The petitioner has approached this Courtcontending that the said question has not been goneinto by the assessing officer and that, it is a clearviolation of the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax andanother; 431 ITR 1. The petitioner has along withI.A. No.1 of 2023 produced the return filed by the petitioner wherein, a specific claim has been made fordeduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.The consideration of the assessment order is availablein paragraph 3 of the order which says that it isevident from the name of the assessee that theassessee is a Co-operative Bank. Other than that, thequestion whether the petitioner is a PrimaryAgricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operativeAgricultural and Rural Development Bank has notbeen specifically gone into. The justification stated isthat even though several notices were issued to thepetitioner, they did not respond. This Court has in thejudgment in W.A. No.753/2021 considered anassessment order in which the question had not beenspecifically answered and set aside the assessmentorder and directed reconsideration. 3. After hearing the counsel on either side, I amof the view that the petitioner ought to be givenanother chance to put forward their case before the assessing officer. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P1and P2 are set aside. The 2[nd] respondent is directedto pass fresh assessment order with notice to thepetitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shallplace before the authority the necessary documentswhich are required to show that they are entitled tocome within the frame work of Section 80P. SKP/06-03 Sd/- T.R.RAVIJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7120/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.09.2022 EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 FOR AY2020-21 DATED 21.09.2022. EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP ( C ) NO.34530 OF 2022 DATED 27.02.2023 EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.02.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE