MUHAMMA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 1670,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, ALAPPUZHA

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 claim of Rs.14,54,103/- [followed by raising a demand of Rs.5,80,390/-] for 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 2019 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.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.