KANAYANNUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 659/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in *Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT*, held that since the assessee failed to file its return of income within the stipulated time under Section 139(1), it is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities denying the deduction were affirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, failed to file its return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 despite receiving notices under Section 142(1). A re-assessment order was passed, subsequently reviewed under Section 263 and set aside. In the fresh assessment, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2) (Rs. 2.21 crore), citing Section 80AC due to the non-filing of the return, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a co-operative society is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act if it fails to file its return of income within the time prescribed under Section 139(1), as per the provisions of Section 80AC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 263,Section 80P(2),Section 80AC,Section 139(1),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Pronounced: 20.05.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.659/Coch/2024
ITA No.660/Coch/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

: Asst.Year 2011-2012 Kanayannur Service Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Bank Limited v. Non Corp Ward 1(1) Chottanikara Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 312. PAN : AABAK4920B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Amaljit P.J., CA Respondent by : Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 19.05.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : These two appeals filed by the assessee are arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 27.05.2024, and relate to the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2011-2012.

2.

Since facts are common, we are deciding these appeals by way of this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. We will take assessment year 2017-2018 as a lead year and discuss the facts.

-660/Coch/2024. Kanayannur SCB Limited.

3.

The brief facts as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a co-operative society could not file the return of income for the impugned year. Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act calling for the return of income. No compliance was made by the assessee in this notice. Thereafter the AO issued another notice on 15th October, 2019 calling for the details from the assessee, however, this notice also remained uncomplied with. At last an order of assessment was passed on 12.12.2019 determining an income of the assessee at Rs.1,30,40,812. This order was reviewed by the ld.CIT u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and ultimately set aside on 08th March, 2022. Thereafter the AO passed the impugned assessment order and denied the deduction of sec.80P(2) of the Act to the tune of Rs.2.21 crore on the ground that since no return of income was filed the claim of the assessee is not maintainable in view of the provisions of sec.80AC of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), however, could not get any success.

5.

Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. When this matter was called up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT(A) has erred in denying deduction of 80P of the Act.

6.

The learned CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below as well as on -660/Coch/2024. Kanayannur SCB Limited. the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730 (Ker.).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that admittedly the facts of the case would show that the assessee has not filed any return of income within the time prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80P of the Act, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is justified in affirming the order of the AO, and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

Our observations in this order is applicable mutatis mutandis to the other appeal in for assessment year 2011-2012, as well.

9.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →