THONNAKKAL SERVICE COOP BANK LTD,KUDAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THIRUVANANATHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 324/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 July 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the delay was not considered properly and that notices were not served on the correct email ID. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the condonation petition and a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative bank, had its appeal regarding section 80P(2) deduction dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to an incorrect email ID and a significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the condonation petition and the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices due to incorrect email communication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SONJOY SARMA

BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thonnakkal Service Co-Op Bank…..………………………..…..….……….Appellant Thonnakkal Service Co-Op Bank No.1754, Kudavoor-695313. [PAN:AABAT0018R] vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), TVR………..……….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rajeev, Adv, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing: June 05, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 31, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 05.03.2025], for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was completed and was the subject of appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.12.2018, allowed the claim of the assessee under section 80P(2) of the Act.

3.

Against which the Revenue filed a second appeal before the ITAT, Cochin Bench. The Tribunal, allowed the Revenue's appeal with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the activities of the assessee and determine whether

Thonnakkal Service Co-Op Bank they are in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and accordingly grant or deny deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act.

4.

Subsequently, assessment under section 143(3) read with the Tribunal's direction was completed on 28.06.2021. However, the assessee contends that neither the Tribunal's order nor the subsequent assessment order was ever received, as they were allegedly sent to an incorrect or inactive email ID.

5.

The assessee first came to know about the assessment order upon receiving a penalty appeal notice from the CIT(A), NFAC, dated 02.06.2023. Immediately upon gaining such knowledge, the assessee searched for and procured a certified copy of the Tribunal's order and assessment order and thereafter filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, on 08.06.2023 along with a condonation petition explaining the delay of 681 days in filing the appeal.

6.

It is submitted that despite the genuine reasons for the delay and non- receipt of prior notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the reasons for delay or the merits of the case. The primary grievance of the assessee is the non-consideration of its condonation request and non-service of notices on the correct email ID assessee could represent its case properly.

7.

On the other hand, Id. DR. supported the order of authority below. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal was not considered in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining whether the delay was bona fide and without addressing the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices due to incorrect email communication.

Thonnakkal Service Co-Op Bank 8. We after considering the same and in the interest of natural justice, are of the view that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC, with direction to adjudicate the condonation petition and decide the appeal on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the CIT(A) and respond to notices promptly.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

31st July, 2025

More judgments on Section 80P(2)

All 332 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →