While Assailing The Assessment Order Before The3[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] Was Not Considered By The Assessingofficer, Though The Assessment Order Was Renderedsubsequent To The Supreme Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO.16614 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KARUVANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 711 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE SMT. SREEKALA E.S. BY ADVS.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIRG.REMADEVIP.F.JOYRAJATH R NATHHARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSSUR, PIN-680 001.2THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001.3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110 001.SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16614 of 2022 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against thepetitioner on 28.03.2022. In the assessment order,petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P wasrejected on the ground that there was no evidence to showthat petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the PrimaryAgricultural Credit Society as contemplated under theKerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2.While assailing the assessment order before the3[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] was not considered by the assessingofficer, though the assessment order was renderedsubsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment. W.P.(C) No.16614/22 -:3:- 3.Since petitioner has already preferred an appealas Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the3[rd] respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition bedisposed of directing the Appellate Authority to considerthe appeal in a time-bound manner. 4.Before parting with this case, this Court iscompelled to observe and comment upon a disturbingpractice being adopted by the Assessing Officers as can beseen in the Assessment order under consideration in thiscase. The Assessing Officers have been repeatedly ignoringthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi's case(supra). 5. In fact, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in ITANo.97/2016 dated 19.03.2019 [(2019) 2 KLT 597] has beenrelied upon by the Assessing Officer to impose liability onthe assessee ignoring the Supreme Court Judgment inMavilayi's case. The Supreme Court judgment inMavilayi's case had overruled the Full Bench judgment ofthis Court. It does not augur well in the interest of the rule of law that Assessing Officers continue to ignore bindingjudgments of the Supreme Court and instead rely uponoverruled judgments. Hence, I am of the view that therespondents must be imposed with a minimal cost. 6.After indicating the need and the inclination ofthe Court to impose costs on the respondents in fiveseparate writ petitions, at the request of the learnedStanding Counsel, the case was posted today for furtherconsideration. 7. The learned Standing Counsel pleaded to avoid of law that Assessing Officers continue to ignore bindingjudgments of the Supreme Court and instead rely uponoverruled judgments. Hence, I am of the view that therespondents must be imposed with a minimal cost. 6.After indicating the need and the inclination ofthe Court to impose costs on the respondents in fiveseparate writ petitions, at the request of the learnedStanding Counsel, the case was posted today for furtherconsideration. 7. The learned Standing Counsel pleaded to avoid the imposition of costs and informed that the departmenthas taken note of the apprehensions expressed by thisCourt on the last posting date. It was also pointed out thatcommunications have been issued from the office of theStanding Counsel to the Senior Officers of the departmentintimating the intention of the Court to impose costs fordisrespecting binding judgments of the Supreme Court andthat necessary steps have been taken by the Department toavoid recurrence of such instances. It was pointed out thatthe impugned assessment orders failed to advert to the binding judgment solely on account of the failure of theassessees to file replies to the show-cause notices issued bythe assessing officer in the case. 8.Though the above submissions of the learnedStanding Counsel were impressive and to a large extentpersuasive, still taking note of the fact that the decision inMavilayi's case was rendered on 12.01.2021, the assessingofficers could not have omitted or feigned ignorance of thesaid binding judgment, notwithstanding the same havingnot been brought to its notice by the respective assessees.To preserve the majesty of law, it is therefore essential toimpose costs, in one case atleast, instead of the five cases,as a token reminder to the department, to always abide bythe rule of law. I reiterate that the imposition of costs is atoken and shall not be treated as a precedent for otherassessment orders already issued. 9. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within a period of six months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an W.P.(C) No.16614/22 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till then, allcoercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant toExt.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above with a cost of Rs.1,000/- on the respondents, payable to the Kerala StateLegal Services Authority, High Court of Kerala. The costshall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMASJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTFOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RE DATED 26-04-2022 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26-04-2022 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.