"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21112 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE THIROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4140, THIROOR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU.P.O, THRISSUR-680581,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, O/O THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE,KERALA-673001. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.21112 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21112 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment was completed by the 3rd respondent disallowing the claim of benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 before the first respondent. It is submitted that the said appeal is pending consideration and that in the meantime petitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in similar cases were the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act has been claimed, this Court has been consistently directing the appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into reckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. W.P.(C)No.21112 of 2021 3 Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485], petitioner seeks such a similar relief in this case also. 3. It is true that in similar cases, this Court has directed the appeal to be disposed of in a time bound manner. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there is no reason why a departure should be made from the other cases. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Pending such consideration, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/05.10.2021 W.P.(C)No.21112 of 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21112/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/04/2021 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23/04/2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 28/04/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF FORM SHOWING THE DATE OF FILING AS 28/04/2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2021 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 06/07/2021 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1536 OF 2019 DATED 01/07/2019 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)N0.14282 OF 2021 DATED 19/07/2021 . "