Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, filed its return for AY 2016-17. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the ITAT with a significant delay of 448 days.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 448-day delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's unawareness of the CIT(A) order. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide evidence to establish its status as a primary agricultural society to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society.
Sections Cited
143(3), 80P(2)(a)(i), 250, 80P
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd........... Appellant Kariyattukara P.O., Thrissur 680611 [PAN: AACAA3641G] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Alan P. Dev, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22.12.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is classified as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to members. The return of Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. income was filed 30.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 1,79,87,945/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur vide order dated 23.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,79,39,378/- by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, there is a delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant did not receive the order passed u/s. 250 of the Act. It became aware of the order only on receipt of the Give Effect order on 14.02.2025. Thus, he submitted that the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) till the passing of consequential order to the CIT(A)’s order. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay had occurred on account of factors which are beyond its control. In the absence of any material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as the CIT(A) had denied the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) for the failure of the assessee to discharge the onus of proving that it is a a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. However, the CIT(A) on consideration of the certificate held that since it is very old, the appellant cannot be granted deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law that in the absence of licence to carry on business of banking the appellant cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction that the appellant shall adduce evidence to prove that the appellant is a primary agricultural society.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025.