THE MAHADEVIKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 5 , ALAPPUZHA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEYAssessment year : 2017-18
Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. ITA Number 289/Coch/2023 is filed by the Mahadevikad Service Cooperative bank Limited for assessment year 2017-18 against appellate order passed by The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the ld. CIT–A] dated 24/02/2023 wherein the appeal filed by Assessee against the best judgement assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by The Income Tax Officer– Ward-5, Alappuzha [the ld. AO ] dated 14/ 12/ 2019 was dismissed. Page 2 of 8
Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising following grounds: - “1. The order of the learned CIT [A] upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The assessment made by the AO and upheld by the CIT[A], under section 144 is against law, facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT[A] should not have upheld the action of the AO, who completed the assessment under section 144 after assessee having filed a valid return of income in response to a notice under section 142(1). 4. The CIT[A] should not have disallowed the assessee's claim under section 80P by wrongly holding that the assessee had not filed any return of income for the year. 5. The CIT[A] should have considered the return of income filed by the assessee and granted the deduction under section 80P as claimed in the return. 5. The CIT[A] should have noted that the return filed in response to notice issued under section 142(1) is a valid one, and the delay in filing was only a technical defect, cured before the completion of the assessment. 6. After having computed the income based on the computation details available in the return of income filed, the Assessing Officer should not have denied the claim made in the return under section 80P of the Income tax Act, 1961. 7. Any other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing may also be considered.” 3. Brief facts of the case show that Assessee is a cooperative society, did not file any return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Income tax Department was in possession of the information that the assessee has made substantial cash deposit in bank accounts during Page 3 of 8
demonetisation period. But the assessee has not filed any return of income. Therefore, a notice under section 142(1) was issued, subsequent reminders were also sent, and a show cause notice was also sent to the assessee. In spite of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income, but stated that it is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act and such income did not exceed the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax and therefore assessee is not required to file an income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act. The learned assessing officer issued a letter dated 2/9/2019 explaining the provisions of section 139, section 80A(5) and deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. It was also stated that in absence of any documentary evidence related to the deposits or credits, it would be assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income. The assessee failed to comply with the same and therefore the assessment was proposed to be completed under section 144 of the Act. The learned assessing officer further obtained details under section 133(6) of the Act from the