"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 26444 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE TRIKARIPUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, TRIKARIPUR, KASARAGOD 671 310, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K. SASI. BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD 671 123. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI 11 0003. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 4 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26444 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.26444 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment for the year 2017-18 was issued against the petitioner on 18.12.2019 while Ext.P3 assessment order for 2018- 19 was issued on 30.04.2021. In the assessment orders, 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 Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment orders before the 1st respondent, in the statutory appeals, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WP(C) NO. 26444 OF 2021 3 Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect. 3. Since the petitioner has already preferred appeals as Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, and the same are pending consideration before the 1 st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals in a time bound manner. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 appeals as expeditiously as possible. 5. Till the disposal of the appeals, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 assessment orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM WP(C) NO. 26444 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26444/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THEA CT FOR THE AY 2017-18. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE AY 2017-18. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.4.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) RW.S. 144 (B), OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2018-19. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL E- FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE AY 2018-19. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE "