Kodungallur Taluk Primary ... vs The Income Tax Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 6362 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 15117 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            KODUNGALLUR TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
            AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
            NO.R 1353, P.O. KODUNGALLUR - 680 664,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            SHRI SHOUKATHALI K. K.
            BY ADVS.
            T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)
            V.P.NARAYANAN
            ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2(1),
            AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE,
            SHAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001.
    2       THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
            NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE,
            NEW DELHI - 110 001.
            BY ADVS.
            P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
            JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA



     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   03.06.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.15117/2022                 -:2:-




                           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 the

petitioner on 26.03.2022. In the assessment order,

petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was

rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show

that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary

Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

2. While assailing the assessment order before the 1st

respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the

judgment 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 rendering

the assessment itself as incorrect.

3. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal

as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the

1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be

disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider

the appeal in a time bound manner.

4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st

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.P1

assessment order.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

ats

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15117/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.03.2022 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL E-

FILED DATED 19.04.2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.13393/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.