ERIMAYUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WARD 5, PALAKKAD

Learned counsel representing the assessee first of all presses for its challenge to validity of the impugned reopening without even placing corresponding reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He quotes hon’ble apex court decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) that the reopening is sustainable in law. We are unable to . Erimayur SCB Ltd. express any opinion qua validity of the impugned reopening once the corresponding reasons do not form part of the case records. That being the case, the assessee’s instant first and foremost ground is rejected.

Next comes the issue of assessees sec.80P deduction claim because of non-compliance of sec.80A(5) of the Act requiring the same to be raised in “a return” than by any other mode. Learned counsel submits that the assessee had filed its return post facto the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 15.12.2016. We are of the considered view that such a return which is filed post facto assessment is hardly a return satisfying the parameters of sec.139 of the Act. We thus found no reason to accept assessee’s instant latter substantive ground on merits as well. Rejected accordingly.