THE RAMANTHALI SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 361/COCH/2012Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 December 2023AY 2009-10Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Hon'ble High Court found the Revenue's application under Section 254(2) to be time-barred, rendering the recall order invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal's original order dated 14.03.2017, which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal, was reinstated and confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment under Section 144 was partly allowed by the CIT(A). After multiple Tribunal orders and a High Court intervention, the Tribunal recalled its order partly allowing the appeal based on a Revenue application under Section 254(2) for fresh adjudication on Section 80P deduction.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the maintainability and time limitation for the Revenue's application under Section 254(2) to recall a Tribunal order, impacting the deduction claimed under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 80P,Section 254(2)

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 Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.12.2023Pronounced: 12.12.2023

O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee arising out of the Order dated 21.09.2012 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [‘(CIT(A) for short], partly allowing it’s appeal contesting it’s assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22.12.2011 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

2.1 The background facts of the case are that the instant appeal was in the first instance disposed of by the Tribunal, dismissing it, vide order dated 21.11.2014. This order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide it’s judgement dated 16.2.2016 (in ITA No. 99/2015). The Tribunal passed a fresh order on 14.03.2017, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal, against which the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application (No. 242/Coch/2021), in view of the decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker), which was accepted by the Tribunal vide it’s order u/s. 254(2) of the Act dated 16.09.2022, recalling it’s order dated 14/3/2017

(AY : 2009-10) Ramanthali Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO for adjudication afresh qua the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. At the time of hearing, it was explained by Shri Raj, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee had since moved the Hon'ble High Court under it’s writ jurisdiction, and which vide it’s order dated 18.09.2023 (in WP(C) No. 30488/2023/copy on record) found that the Revenue’s application, filed on 30.9.2019, was not maintainable inasmuch as it was filed beyond the six month limitation period, i.e., from the end of the month in which the order sought to be rectified u/s. 254(2) stands passed. As such the order dated 16.9.2022 obtains no longer, and the Tribunal’s order dated 14.3.2017 would, accordingly, stand.

2.2 Smt. Devi, the learned Sr. DR, fairly conceded in the matter. 3. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal’s order dated 14.3.2017 would continue to hold, i.e., the Tribunal’s adjudication per the said order is hereby confirmed. We decide according.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →