Kerala High Court
The Thalore Service Co-Operative ... vs The ... on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21075 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
THE THALORE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
1-269, THALORE, THRISSUR-680 306,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.V.SHAJKUMAR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001.
2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE,
DELHI-110 001,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(APPEALS).
3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 2 (1), THRISSUR-680 001.
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
===========================
W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021
---------------------------------
Dated this the 5 th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For
the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment was
completed by the 3 rd respondent disallowing the claim
of benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging
the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an
appeal as Ext.P2 before the 2 nd 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 has
been claimed, this Court has been consistently directing
the appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into
reckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021
in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021
(1) KLT 485].
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that by Ext.P4, 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 principle 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.P4 may not have any
relevance for the time being, in view of the nature of
orders I propose to issue in this case.
5. In similar cases, this Court has directed the appeal to
be disposed of in a time bound manner.
6. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there is
no reason why a departure should be made from the
W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021
other cases. Accordingly, there will be a direction to
the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible. 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
AMV/06/10//2021
W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21075/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED
12.4.2021
Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2021
Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
19.5.2021
Exhibit P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 2.7.2021
Exhibit P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
30.9.2021
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
