THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL RURAL DE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2011HC KeralaKLHC01026485201126 November 2015Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal by the Revenue lacked merit and did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court noted that the Tribunal's findings, to the extent they related to the issues raised in the appeal, did not warrant interference. This was particularly true given that the first appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and its confirmation by the Tribunal did not present any substantial question of law. The Court observed that the issue regarding the assessee falling under sub-section 4 of Section 80P had already been answered against the assessee in a separate judgment (ITA.No.103 of 2011). The High Court found the appeal unsustainable and dismissed it. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum) filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The appeal concerned the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be prior to the ITAT order dated February 23, 2011. The core dispute revolved around whether the assessee, Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd., was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) on December 22, 2009, followed by an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on an unspecified date in 2010. The ITAT's order dated February 23, 2011, was the subject of the Revenue's appeal to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, having already held that the assessee is not a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal, after considering the facts and figures, held that the matter required remittance to the Assessing Officer for further consideration and adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that since the assessee was correctly found not to be a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, it should not be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's contrary findings were inconsistent, unintended by the legislature, contrary to law, and therefore perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 ITA.No. 137 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------ ITA 506/COCH/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH -------------------- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONERE OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT : --------------------------------------- KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC, BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/9/2015, THE COURT ON 26-11-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp ITA.No. 137 of 2011 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DT 22/12/2009. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 30//2010. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 23/2/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan & Babu Mathew P. Joseph, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A.No.137 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015

Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The question whether the respondent falls under sub-section 4 of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act stands answered against it as per judgment delivered today in ITA.No.103 of 2011. 2.The issue raised in this appeal by the Revenue is as to whether, it having held that the assessee is not a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. 3.The learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that the assessee having been rightly found to be not a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, it is not entitled to deduction in terms of Section 80P (2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. He also pointed out that the findings to the contrary as rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are inconsistent and militate against the other findings in the impugned order and are wholly unintended by the Legislature and that such dichotomy is contrary to law and hence, perverse. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal had, in so far as the issue involved in this appeal is concerned, held after adverting to the facts and figures that the matter requires to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of the matter and adjudication of such issues. 5.The contents of the order of the Tribunal in so far as they relate to the matter in issue in this appeal, categorically show that the findings rendered by the Tribunal do not warrant any interference, more particularly when the case does not involve any substantial question of law having regard to the contents of the first appellate order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the manner in which it stands confirmed by the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the issues sought to be raised in this appeal. 6.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal by the Revenue. No substantial question of law arises for decision and the appeal under Section 260A at the instance of the Revenue as against the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, Judge

Sha/

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →