IRIMBILIYAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 308/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the action of the AO.3 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 denied the condonation of delay, finding the explanation generic and implausible. On merits, relying on jurisdictional High Court precedent, it held that Section 80P deduction is only available if the return is filed within the due date under Section 139(1). Thus, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a co-operative society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P for AY 2020-21, but the AO and CIT(A) denied it because the return of income was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a significant delay of 563 days, for which condonation was sought, citing late awareness of the CIT(A) order.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the condonation of a 563-day delay in filing the appeal, and whether a co-operative society is eligible for Section 80P deduction if the return of income is not filed by the due date under Section 139(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80AC,Section 139(1),Section 270A

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, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 05.05.2025

Asst.Year 2020-2021 Irimbiliyam Service Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited, Irimbiliyam PO v. Ward - 1 Malapuram – 679 572. Tirur. PAN : AAAAI8321F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Swathy S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 09.08.2023 for the assessment year 2020-2021.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a co- operative society, duly formed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1956. The return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 was filed on 30th March, 2021, after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act, amounting to Rs.27,83,922. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Tirur (hereinafter “the AO") denying the claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not filed within the due

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal.

5.

The learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6.

At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal by 563 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) was received by the appellant on 10th August, 2023 through email, which was not noticed by the appellant. The appellant became aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) only at the time when he received the penalty order passed u/s.270A of the Act on 18.03.2025, and immediately thereafter steps were initiated to file the appeal and the appeal came to be filed on 19.04.2025, which resulted in a delay of 563 days.

7.

I had carefully perused the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. I find that the appellant had admitted to have received the order passed by the CIT(A) on 10th August, 2023, however, the appellant had failed to explain the circumstances as to how he could not notice the order passed by the CIT(A) when it was served . Irimbiliyam SCB Limited. on 10th August, 2023. Thus, the explanation filed by the appellant is too generic and no plausible explanation is filed by the appellant. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for condoning the delay.

8.

Even otherwise, on the merits of the case, the issue is covered against the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730 (Ker.), wherein it was held that for claiming deduction u/s.80P, the assessee-society must make the said claim in the return of income filed within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the assessee service co- operative bank is not entitled for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →