Wp/17825/2021 Of Sri Rama Souharda Credit Co-Operative Society v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV| %WRIT PETITION No.17825/2021 (TIT) Between:| Sri Rama Sounarda Credit.Co-operative SocietyNo.557, Maruthi Complex,|N.H.66 Byndoor, Kundapura Taluk,|Udupi District - 576 224.Rep. DyChief Executive Officer.—. Petitioner (By Sri Manhesn R. Uppin, Advocate) And+ 1.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Room No.356, C.R. Building, I.P.Estate,New Delni - 110 O02.New Delni - 110 O02. 2D.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,Ward-2, Aayakar Bnavan, Aadi-Udupi Maipe Road,Udupi - 576 103.Udupi - 576 103. 3.Assessing Officer,National e-Assessment Centre, DelIni - 110 O02. .. RespondentsNational e-Assessment Centre, DelIni - 110 O02. .. Respondents (By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate) This Writ Petition ts filed under Articles 226 & 22/7 ofConstitution of India, praying to quash the assessment order|dated 14.08.2021 passed in PAN No. by the R-3|vide Annexure-A and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary nearing thisday, the Court made the following: | ORDER The.petitioner,whoIS.aPrimary.Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 has filed this petition seekingto set aside the Assessment order dated 14.08.2021 passedby the Assessing Officer vide Annexure-A and in thealternative, Nas sougnt for issuance of writ in the nature ofmandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of theappeal at Annexure- C of the petition. Agricultural | 2 |The principal contention of the petitioner is thatrefusal of deduction by the Assessing Officer in theimpugned order is contrary to the law laid down by theApex Court in the case ofMavilayi Service Co-operativeBank Ltd. anda Others-"Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut and Anotherreported in2021 SCC Online SC 16. It is submitted that the judgment of Apex Court in the case ofCitizen Cooperative Society Ltd.,ThroughitsManaging|Director, HyderabadVVAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabadreported in(2017) 397 ITR 1was Clarified by the Apex.Court. It is submitted that in light of the above judgment,tne impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3Learned counsel appearing for the Revenuesubmits that aS an appeal has already been filed and Ispending, the question of this Court entertaining the Writpetition at this stage does not arise. Upon instructions, it issubmitted that the appeal would be disposed off witnin aperiod of not later than four months from this day. 4In light of the submission that the appeal itselfwould be disposed off expeditiously, it would not beappropriate to adjudicate on the contention of petitioner asraised. — 5.|Insofar as the prayer of petitioner that theimpugned order needs to be kept in abeyance and theconsequent demand notice also needs to be stayed, it wouldbe appropriate to observe that such request can be madebefore the respondent No.1 - First Appellate Authority andthe said respondent while considering grant of stay, subjectto deposit, is to Keep in mind the position of law includingthe judgment of Apex Court which the petitioner assertswould enure to its benefit. — 6.|Needless to state that while considering theaspect of stay, merits of the matter are to be taken note ofand to that end, the assertion of petitioner that tnejuagment of Apex Court would enure to its benefit is amatter to be taken note of appropriately by the FirstAppellate Authority. The contentions of parties are Keptopen. J.In lignt of the submission that the appeal would be disposed off within a period of not later than four montns, the First Appellate Authority to ensure that appeal is disposed off within a period of four months. This petition is accordinglydisposed off Sd/-'| JUDGE| VGR