Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946 ITA NO. 12 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2018 IN ITA NO.202 OF 2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDETN/REVENUE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE THE PAZHAVANGADIKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,PAZHAVANGADIKKARA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 673. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA No.12 of 2019 2 J U D G M E N T ============
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The issue involved in this Appeal pertains to the entitlement of the respondent-assessee to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short). 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Sri.Jose Joseph, brings to our notice a decision of this Court dated 14.03.2023 in I.T.Appeal No.120 of 2019, where it was held that in view of the express provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act, a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act can be made by an assessee only in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 186 of the Act. In as much as in the instant case, the assessee had not filed any valid return, as per the statutory provisions aforementioned, within the time permitted by the statute, we find that the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act, could not have been allowed, as was done by the Appellate Tribunal in the orders impugned in the appeal. In addition, we also find that by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish
ITA No.12 of 2019 3 Chandra Sinha [1996 (220) ITR 67 (SC)], since the respondent- assessee had not filed a valid return in terms of Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 186 of the Act, he could not have claimed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act in a revised return since a revised return is, by definition, a return that revises an earlier return filed. In the instant case, since there was no valid return originally filed, there was no question of revising it either. 3. Thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra), as also our judgment dated 14.03.2023 in I.T.Appeal NO.120 of 2019, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and answering the questions of law raised in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm
ITA No.12 of 2019 4
APPENDIX OF ITA 12/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A ASSESSMENT
ORDER
U/S.143(3)
DTD. 27/12/2016. ANNEXURE B CIT
(A)'S
ORDER
NO.ITA T.38/CIT(A)/KTM/2016-17 DATED 26/02/2018. ANNEXURE C ITAT'S ORDER IN ITA NO.202/COCH/2018 DATED 09/07/2018.