Kerala High Court
M/S East Eleri Service ... vs Additional/ Joint/Deputy And ... on 19 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S EAST ELERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
WARD 2/728 CHITTARIKKAL,
KASARGOD -671326,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.JOSE PRAKASH.
BY ADVS.
A.KUMAR
P.J.ANILKUMAR
G.MINI(1748)
P.S.SREE PRASAD
AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001.
SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 25796 of 2021
--------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For
the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment was
completed by the first respondent, disallowing the claim of
benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the order
of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P3
before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the said
appeal is pending consideration and that, in the meantime,
petitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken.
2. Having regard to the fact that in similar cases were
the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act is
involved, this Court has been consistently directing the
appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into reckoning the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi
Service Co-operative Bank and Others v.
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021
(1) KLT 485], this writ petition can also be disposed of in
similar lines.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that by Ext.P5, the assessing officer has
demanded the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sum
adjudged in Ext.P1 for the purpose of staying further
proceedings for recovery.
4. It is a settled proposition that the Office
Memorandum of 2016 as revised in 2017 cannot control the
discretionary powers of the appellate authority. Since the
appeal is pending consideration, Ext.P3 may not have any
relevance for the time being, in view of the nature of orders
I propose to issue in this case.
5. As mentioned earlier, in similar cases, this Court
has directed the appeal to be disposed of in a time bound
manner. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there
is no reason why a departure should be made from the other
cases.
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd
respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on
Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible in a time bound manner. Pending such
consideration, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1
assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJ
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25796/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DATED
19.04.2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
19.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 28.05.2021 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY
DATED 01.11.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ITA
NO.72/2019 AND CONNECTED CASE DATED
16.03.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C0 NO.10451/2021 DATED 27.04.2021.
