M/s.Malampuzha Service Co-op bank Ltd, Palakkad V. The ITO, Palakkad

ITA 340/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4662 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAJJIVE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Competent authority
• Section: 80P; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA NO S . 3 40 TO 3 4 2 / COCH / 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 3 - 1 4, 201 6 - 17 & 2017 - 18 ) SA NO S . 181 TO 1 8 3 / COCH / 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 3 - 1 4, 201 6 - 17 & 2017 - 18 ) THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KADUKKAMKUNNU P.O. MALAMPUZHA PALAKKAD 6 78 651 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 AYAKKAR BHAVAN ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD PALAKKAD 678001 PAN AABA M9105E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI SIVADAS CHETTOOR , CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. SAJJIVE , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 20 . 10 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 . 10 .2020 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), DATED 2 6 .08.2020. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED STAY APPLICATIONS SEEKING TO STAY THE RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING TAX ARREARS. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 201 3 - 1 4, 201 6 - 17 & 2017 - 18 . 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOW: THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY R EGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 3 - 1 4, 201 6 - 17 & 2017 - 18 , RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 2 THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHEREI N THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT. THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ESSENTIALLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKIN G, AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF INSERTION OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE I.T. ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERAT IVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [(2019) 414 ITR 67 (KER.) (FB) (HC)] HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ELABORATE FINDINGS AND HAS COME TO A FACTUAL FINDING THAT AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY MINUSCULE AND ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TERMED AS PR IMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014 - 2015 AND 2015 - 2016. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. TH E ORDER OF T HE LEA RN ED COMM I SS I ONER OF I NCOME TAX( APP EALS ), THR I SSU R I N SO FAR AS IT IS P R E J U DI C I A L TO TH E INT E R ESTS OF T HE APPE LL A N T I S O PP OSED TO LA W , FACTS AND C I RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR DE D UCT I O N U / S 80P ( 2 ) (A)(I ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND THE OBSERVATION OR FIND IN G T O TH E CONTRARY B Y T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE ILLEGA L AND UNSUSTAINABLE. IT IS FUR THE R SUBMITTED THAT ON A HARMONIOUS AND COMBINED READING OF ALL THE APPLICABLE PR OV IS I ONS OF LAW I N THIS CONNECTION ALONG WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE APPEL LANT IS C LEAR L Y ELIGIBL E FOR THE DEDUCTION. A DETAILED NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GRO UN D SHA L L BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(4) OF T HE ACT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW ON A HA R M O NIOUS AND COMB I NED READING OF ALL THE APPLICABLE ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3 PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS CON NEC T ION . A DETAILED NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE HE A RI N G OF THIS APPEAL . 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE ORDER BASED ON THE D E CISI ONS O F CHIRAKKA L AND PERINTHALMANNA CASE ALONE AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE O TH E R I MPOR T A NT G R O UNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO DEC I DE ALL T HE I SSUES / G R O UNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL . THEREFORE THE SA I D ORDER VIOLATES THE NAT U RA L J USTICE PR I N CI P L E S BESIDES BEING ILLEGAL . 5. I N THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLA N T I S CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION O F THE WHOLE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF G IVING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBE R S UNDER SECTION 80P . THE DENIAL OF THE SAID D E D UCTION BY THE CIT(A) I S ILLEGAL , UNWARR AN T ED AND UNREASONABLE. 6. THE O R D ER SUFF E RS FR OM SE RI OUS LEG A L INF I RMITIES IN SO FAR AS T HE LEA R NED OFF I CER FA IL ED T O DE AL WITH MA NY I MPO RT ANT OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE D E NIA L O F DEDUCTION U / S 80P ( 4 ) OF TH E A C T. T HE P R ED I SPOSITION AND THE LACK OF APPLI CATI ON O F M I ND ARE PLA I N AND GLARING. T HERE IS A CL EAR VI OLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN T H IS C ASE . 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ACTED ILL E GALL Y WHILE IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT T HE SOCIETY FALLS UND E R T HE DEFINITION OF CO - OPER A TIVE CREDIT SOCIETY U / S 5 (CCII) OF THE BANKING REGULATIO N A CT 1949 . 8. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT IS TREATING THE A PP ELLANT AS A COOPERATIVE BANK THEN ALL THE OTHER DEDUCTIONS AND RELIEFS PROVIDED TO THE SAID BANKS SHOULD ALSO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE DED UCT ION U/S 36(1)(VIIA). 9. THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR COMPLETE EXEMPTION FROM T AX ON APPLICAT ION OF THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY. 10. THE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AS AOP AS FIXED BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ORDER PASSED IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. 11. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C H A LL ENGING THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN MAVILAYIL C AS E I'I'A NO . 97/2016 HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE M A T TE R IS PENDING. 12. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CHIRAKKAL CASE IS APPLICABLE TO TH E A PPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HON SUPREME COURT IN VADILAL CH E M ICALS L TD V S STATE OF AP WHERE IT IS STATED THAT NO TAX AUTHORITIES CAN REJECT A BI NDING CERTIFICATE. IT I S SUBMITTED WITH UTMOST RESPECT TO THE HON COURT THAT TH E D ECISION TO T HE CONTRARY IN MAVILAYIL CASE IS TO BE RECONSIDERED AS ONE RENDERED P E R I NCURIUM. 13. THE AP PELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS 50 , 000/ - U/S 80P(2)(C) OF THE ACT IN C ASE ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE FOUND REJECTED. ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 4 14. FOR THES E AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY PERMITTED T O B E RAISED AND EVIDENCES ADD UCED AT TH E TI ME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE JUSTI C E B E DONE TO THE APPELLANT B Y QU ASHI NG OR MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESS MEN T. 5.1 THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (KER.)] HAD HELD THAT WHEN A CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO AN ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHARACTERIZI NG IT AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY, NECESSARILY, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CI T (SUPRA) HAD REVERSED THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) . THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATI VE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CLASSIFYING THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY AS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARA TE AND ELIGIBILITY SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE FINDING OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS FOLLOWS: - 33. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIE TY [397 ITR 1] IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 5 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE , MERELY LOOKING AT THE CLASS OF THE SOCIETY AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER THE CENTRAL OR STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. ON SUCH A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P. 33. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETIES HAVING BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KCS ACT, IT HAS NECESSARILY TO BE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF SUCH SOCIETIES IS T O UNDERTAKE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE LOANS AND ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE RATE OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES TO BE AT THE RATE TO BE FIXED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER THE KCS ACT AND HAVING IT S AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT OR A MUNICIPALITY AND AS SUCH, THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT TO EASE THEMSELVES OUT FROM THE COVERAGE OF SECTION 80P AND THAT, THE AUTHORITIES UNDER TH E IT ACT CANNOT PROBE INTO ANY ISSUES OR SUCH MATTERS RELATING TO SUCH SOCIETIES AND THAT, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES REGISTERED AS SUCH UNDER THE KCS ACT AND CLASSIFIED SO, UNDER THE ACT, INCLUDING THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTION. 34. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH EXPRESSED A DIVERGENT OPINION, WITHOUT NOTICING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA [2012 (3) KHC 726] AND PERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268]. MOREOVER, THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN CHIRAKK AL [384 ITR 490] IS NOT GOOD LAW, SINCE, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1], ON A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT. IN VI EW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1] THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH ERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268] HAS TO BE AFFIRMED AND WE DO SO. 35. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS CASE (SUPRA), SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS IN NO ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 6 MANNER DEFEATED BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, IF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CEASES TO BE THE SPECIFIED CLASS OF SOCIETIES FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS PROVIDED, EVEN IF IT WAS ELIGIBLE IN THE INITIAL YEARS. 6.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESS EE WAS ESSENTIALLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND DISBURSEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY MINUSCULE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PERUSING THE NARRATION OF THE LOAN EXTRACTS FOR THE FINANCIAL PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENT, ONLY A MINUSCULE PORTION HAS BEEN ADVANCED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE NARRATION IN LOAN EXTRACTS / AUDIT REPORTS BY ITSELF MAY NOT CONCLUSIVE TO PROVE WHETHER LOAN IS A AGRICULTURAL LOAN OR A NON - AGRICULTURAL LOAN. THE GOLD LOANS MAY OR MAY NOT BE DISBURSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. NECESSARILY, THE A.O. HAD TO EXAMINE T HE DETAILS OF EACH LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND DETERMINE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOANS WERE DISBURSED, I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE OR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. IN THIS CASE, SUCH A DETAILED EXAMINATION HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE A.OS. IN T HE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE SHOULD BE FRESH EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF EACH LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN DISBURSED, I.E., WHETHER IT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE OR NOT. THE A.O. SHALL LIST OUT THE IN STANCES WHERE LOANS HAVE DISBURSED FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY FUNCTIONING UNDER THE KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AC T, 1969, BEFORE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T.ACT. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PURPOSE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ITA NOS. 340 TO 3 4 2/ COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 181 TO 18 3/ COCH / 2020 THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 7 EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE - SOCI ETY BY FOLLOWING THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) AND SHALL TAKE A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE, THE ASSESSEE SHA LL CO - OPERATE WITH THE A.O. AND SHALL FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. SINCE WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS, THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN , DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2020 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - THRISSUR 4. THE PR. CIT - THRISSUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, COCHIN 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN N.P.