THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 653/COCH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 December 2022AY 2019-20203 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 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?

Section 80P,Section 139(1),Section 80AC(ii)

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: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Kabil Chandran, Adv
For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.11.2022Pronounced: 13.12.2022

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →