M/S.AVANAKUZHY SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(2), TRIVANDRUM

It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s sec.80P deduction of Rs.1,46,70,634/- derived from deposits made in cooperative bank(s)/societies, etc.,

Learned DR vehemently argued in light of sec.80A(5) read with sec.80L of the Act that once the assessee filed his belated return, the impugned deduction claim(s) deserves to be rejected on the threshold itself.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical arguments. We make it clear first of all that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker) has considered the ambit and scope of sec.80A(5) of the Act to conclude that even a belated return; atleast filed during the course of assessment could not be rejected for the purpose declining sec.80P deduction claim.

So far as the Revenue’s latter objection seeking to invoke sec.80AC of the Act is concerned, the same is admittedly applicable on or after 01.04.2018 whereas we are in assessment year 2018-2019. The Revenue failed to brought on record any 3 ITA.No.330 & SA.No.63/COCH./2023 supportive material indicating retrospective applicability of sec.80AC of the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s arguments in principle and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after verification of all the relevant facts in light of Pr. CIT vs. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker). Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.330/Coch./2023 is allowed and stay application S.A.No.63/Coch./2023 has become infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.