M/S.THE PATTANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CHERTHALA vs. THE ITO, , ALAPPUZHA

We observe that there is a delay of 736 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Explaining the cause of delay, the assessee submitted that the Branch Secretary has been suspended on account of financial manipulation and fraudulent activities and the other members were not aware of the income-tax matters. Ld DR submitted that even if the delay is condoned the matter is squarely covered against the -227/Coch/2020. The Pattanakkad SC.B Limited. assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, considering the reasons mentioned in delay and relying on the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice, the delay is condoned and the appealis admitted for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co- operative bank and engaged in the business of banking. For the impugned assessment years, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.148 of the Act vide notice dated 28th March, 2014. In response to this notice also, the assessee did not file any return of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer denied the benefit of sec.80P to the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker.)] held that the provisions of sec.80A(5) of the I.T.Act is applicable to the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. We observe that in this case the assessee admittedly has not filed any return of income. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra), we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled for deduction of sec.80P.

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