Kerala High Court
Anjarakandy Farmers Service ... vs The Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 6 March, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ANJARAKANDY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
(AFSC BANK) NO.1141, P.O. MAMBA, KANNUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MANOJ KUMAR P, PIN - 670611
BY ADVS.
K.P.PRADEEP
T.T.BIJU
T.THASMI
M.J.ANOOPA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NORTH BLOCK ,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL
FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO. 401, 2ND
FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN -
110003
3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI,
ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003
SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM , SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2024 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
26.09.2022. 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 3rd
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 3rd
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 3rd
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 and Ext.P3 demand notice.
The writ petition is disposed of as above..
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8946/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO
ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1045950898(1) DATED
26-09-2022 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 BY THE
2NDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21-10-2022
FILED FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 BEFORE THE
3RDRESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.
ITBA/AST/S/156/2022-23/1045950955(1) DATED
26-09-2022 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-02-2022 IN
WPC NO 6109 OF 2022
