THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the condition of filing the return within the due date for claiming deduction under Section 80P is mandatory, not directory. Therefore, the denial of deduction by the lower authorities was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deductions under Section 80P for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The lower authorities denied these claims because the assessee did not file its return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1).
What were the issues?
Whether the condition of filing the return of income by the due date under Section 139(1) is mandatory or directory for claiming deduction under Section 80P, as per Section 80AC(ii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- 533 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s orders, both dated 27.11.2021, passed in Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1037307680(1) and Din & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1037306592(1) respectively, involving proceedings under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Learned counsel representing the assessee vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining the assessee’s Section 80P deduction claims of Rs.14,54,100/-[followed by raising a demand of Rs.5,80,390/- for the 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) A.Y. 2018-19] and Rs.35,91,710/- [followed by raising a demand of Rs.15,07,190/- for the A.Y. 2019-20]; respectivelyon the sole reason that it had not filed it’s return within the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions and see no merit in assessee’s stand. We make it clear that the assessee has indeed quoted Section 80AC(ii) of the Act that although it has been prescribed in the relevant statute to claim the impugned deduction only after filing Section 139(1) return before the due date, this tribunal’s recent coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Path Sanstha vs. ITO in dated 07.10.2022 has held the foregoing condition(s) as “directory” and not a mandatory one.
We find no merit in assessee’s foregoing arguments claiming Section 80AC(ii) of the Act as a mere directory provision in the light of Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9SCC 1 (SC) (FB) that provisions in a taxing statute (including deductions) have to be strictly interpreted only. We next observe that the legislature has interpreted “no such deduction” and “unless” in Section 80AC(ii); for the period after 01.04.2018, by way of negative covenants which forms a mandatory stipulation only in light of PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION by Justice G.P. Singh (termed as the treatise on the subject of statutory constructions) at Pages 446 to 448 under Chapter 5 thereof. So far as the assessee’s reliance on this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s decision (supra) is concerned, the same hardly forms a binding precedent once dealing with assessment year 2009-10 only i.e., before 01.04.2018. We thus uphold the learned lower authorities action under challenge therefore denying sec.80P deduction in issue. Rejected accordingly. 3 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) 6. This assessee’s twin appealsare dismissed in above terms.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 13th December, 2022.
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 →- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026