Nadakkal Service Co-Operative ... vs The Commissioner Of Income ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7977 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 21146 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

          M/S.NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
          KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM - 691 578 REPRESENTED BY
          ITS SECRETARY.
          BY ADVS.
          C.A.JOJO
          SHAFFIE THOMAS


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)
          NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW
          DELHI - 110 001.
    2     THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
          NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW
          DELHI - 110 001.
    3     INCOME TAX OFFICER
          WARD-4, KOLLAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLLAM - 691 001.
          SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21146 OF 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 28.09.2021. 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 3 rd

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.P3 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.P3, 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,

and Exts.P2 and P4 demand notices.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21146/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2018-19 DATED 28/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 28/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2018-19 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/10/2021. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER FOR 20% OF TAX, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13/06/2022.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NOT TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A DEFAULTER, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/06/2022.