While Assailing The Assessment Order Before The 3[Rd] Respondent,Petitioner Has Sought To Canvass That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court Inmavilayi Service Coop v. Commissioner Of Incometax; 2021 (1) Klt 485 Was Not Considered By The Assessing Officer Though Theassessment Order Was Rendered Subsequent To The Supreme Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 19 DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946WP(C) NO. 25562 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: CALICUT METRO BUILDING OWNERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,ROOM NO. 13/501, KATTAYATTKANDY PARAMBU KASABA, CHALAPURAM S.O, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - SHYJA NEDINJALIL, PIN - 673002 BY ADVS.R.JAIKRISHNANARAYANI HARIKRISHNANC.S.ARUN SHANKARANISH P. RESPONDENT/S: 1ASSESSMENT UNIT,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110003 2COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 1100013INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 SRI. P.R. AJITHKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operativeSocieties Act, 1969. Exhibit P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioneron 08-02-2024. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction wasrejected on the ground that the income of the petitioner is not eligible for deductionunder Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 3[rd] respondent,petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court inMavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of IncomeTax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 was not considered by the assessing officer though theassessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and thesame is pending consideration before the 3[rd] respondent, I deem it fit that this writpetition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in atime bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to considerand pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible. 5.Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiatedagainst the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 demand notice. The writ petition isdisposed of as above. AMG Sd/-GOPINATH P. JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25562/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.20241ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2024 Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2024RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2024 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERDATED 4.3.2024DATED 4.3.2024 Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2024PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2024 Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCINGSUBMISSION OF STAY PETITION DATED NILSUBMISSION OF STAY PETITION DATED NIL Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT INWP(C) 15785/2024 DATED 12.4.2024WP(C) 15785/2024 DATED 12.4.2024