CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD-1(1), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/COCH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 November 2022AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue flagged by the revisional authority was not verified by the AO during assessment. The AO's reliance on a High Court decision that was later reversed by the Supreme Court was also noted. The Pr. CIT's direction to verify the provisions in light of the Supreme Court decision was considered apt.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank claimed deduction under Section 80P, which was initially rejected by the AO. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, pointing out that certain provisions aggregating to Rs.1652.93 Lacs were not added by the AO. The Pr. CIT directed the AO to verify these provisions in light of a Supreme Court decision.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the revisional authority's jurisdiction under Section 263 due to the AO's alleged lack of proper inquiry during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of revisional order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode [Pr.CIT] on 22-02-2022 u/s 263 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 23-12-2019. In this appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of jurisdiction of revisional authority as exercised u/s 263. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and 2 - accordingly, the hearing was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. CIT-DR who pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

2.

From the record, it could be seen that the assessee is registered under Kerala Cooperative Societies Act having banking as its principal business. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P for Rs.322.33 Lacs on the ground that it was primary agricultural society. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and denied the said deduction and assessed the income at Rs.322.33 Lacs.

3.

Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case record, sought revision of the order on the ground that various provisions aggregating to Rs.1652.93 Lacs were not added by Ld. AO while framing the assessment. The same were in the nature of contingent liability and not allowable. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to verify the stated issue in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (431 ITR 1). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

Upon perusal of record, the undisputed position that emerges is that the issue flagged by revisional authority was not verified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. which has since been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. Pr. CIT has directed Ld. AO to consider the issue of verification of provisions in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is quite apt and could not be faulted with. Therefore, since it is the case of no enquiry by Ld. AO on the issues flagged by Ld. Pr. CIT, no fault could be found in the impugned order. The assessee is free to advance all the arguments in support of its claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Our adjudication would not be construed as any reflection on the merits of the case. We order so.

5.

The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →