While Assailing The Assessment Order Before The 3[Rd]Respondent, Petitioner Has Sought To Canvass That Thejudgment Of The Supreme Court In Mavilayi Service Co-O v. Commissioner Of Income Tax[2021 (1) Klt 485] Now Governs The Field Thereby Renderingthe Assessment Itself As Incorrect

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 31 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944WP(C) NO. 17553 OF 2022 PETITIONER: PATTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T 1318,MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNAMMOOLA P.O., TRIVANDRUM – 695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SREEJI S. BY ADVS.K.P.PRADEEPHAREESH M.R.SANAND RAMAKRISHNANT.T.BIJUT.THASMIM.J.ANOOPASANU S MALAKEEL RESPONDENTS: 1THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.2INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE CENTRAL, KOLLAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM – 691 001.3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioneron 22.03.2022. 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 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 3[rd]respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax[2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field thereby renderingthe assessment itself as incorrect. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 3[rd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed ofdirecting the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in atime bound manner. WP(C) NO. 17553 OF 2022 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2,as expeditiously as possible. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. DK Sd/- JUDGE GOPINATH P. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17553/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041277582(1) DATED 22-03-2022 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21-04-2022 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BEFORETHE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1041277601(1) DATED 22-03-2022 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.