THE NATTIKA FIRKA COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD. NO. F 1251,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1 AND TPS, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not applicable for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the provision was effective from April 1, 2021. However, for assessment year 2022-23, the disallowance was upheld due to the assessee's failure to comply with Section 80AC(ii) by not filing the return within the due date.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Nattika Firka Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., appealed against the disallowance of its Section 80P deduction claims for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. The disallowances were made through processing under Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was valid for the respective assessment years, considering the effective date of the provision and compliance with Section 80AC.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80P,Section 143(1)(a)(v),Section 80AC,Section 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench
These assessee’s three appeals arise against orders of the CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under: - DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 572/Coch/2024 2020-21 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 16.04.2024 25/1064143423(1) 2 573/Coch/2024 2022-23 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 18.04.2024 25/1064182944(1) 3 577/Coch/2024 2019-20 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 16.04.2024 25/1064141880(1)
The assessee has also filed corresponding as many stay applications as well.
573 & 577/Coch/2024 SA Nos. 142, 143 & 141/Coch/2024 Nattika Firka Co-operativee Rural Bank Ltd. Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex-parte against the assessee.
Learned CIT-DR vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly disallowed the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim(s); involving varying sums, in all these assessment years by way of “processing” u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. He next pinpoints that only distinction in these cases that the last assessment year AY 2022-23 is squarely covered by the statutory amendment that the foregoing provision is applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards wherein the assessee had filed its belted return to claim section 80P deduction.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s foregoing vehement arguments. We first of all conclude that so far as the assessee’s appeals & 572/Coch/2024 for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21 are concerned the impugned “processing” provision dealing with Chapter-VI deductions is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 onwards only. We thus see no force in Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned disallowance by sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” in both these cases. These assessee’s twin appeals & 572/Coch/2024 succeed in very terms therefore.
This leaves as with assessee’s appeal 2022-23. We note herein that the assessee’s impugned section 80P deduction claim is indeed hit by not only u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) but also the corresponding statutory amendments in section 80AC of the Act applicable from 01.04.2018 and afterwards. The assessee has indeed not complied with the rigor of section 80AC(ii) by filing its returns well within the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
573 & 577/Coch/2024 SA Nos. 142, 143 & 141/Coch/2024 Nattika Firka Co-operativee Rural Bank Ltd. We thus see no merit in assessee’s instant last appeal ITA 573 /Coch/2024 for AY 2022-23. Rejected accordingly.
To sum up, the assessee’s twin appeals herein & 572/Coch/2024 are allowed and third appeal ITA 573/Coch/2024 is dismissed in above terms. All the corresponding stay application SA Nos. 141, 142 & 143/Coch/2024 are dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026