MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM
ITA No.436/Coch/2023: Asst.Year:2019-2020 (and SP No. 80/Coch/2023) Mukkom Service Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited, F-1241 Ward 2(3) vs. Mukkom P.O. Kozhikode. Kozhikode – 673 602 [PAN: AACAM3643G] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Sri. Johnson George, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Date of Date of Hearing : 23.11.2023 Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 04.05.2023 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on processing of it’s return of income for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020 vide Intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 15.6.2020.
The denial of deduction u/s.80P in the instant case has been on account of application of s.80AC of the Act, which, with effect from 01.04.2018, bars the claim of deduction, inter alia, under any provision falling under Chapter VI-A (Part-C), where not made per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1). The return in the instant case has been admittedly filed on 11.3.2020, i.e., beyond the extended period of time allowed for filing the original return, i.e., 31.10.2019. The claim u/s.80P, made at Rs.1,97,07,290 was accordingly disallowed vide Intimation u/s.143(1), raising a demand for Rs.86,16,902.
ITA No.436/Coch/2023& SP 80/Coch/2023 Mukkom Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO 3. The issue before us is the maintainability of the Revenue’s action in denying the assessee it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P on processing u/s. 143(1)(a). This Tribunal has, vide a detailed order in Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO (in ITA No.95/Coch/2023, dated 25.9.2023), found the adjustment u/s.143(1)(a)(ii), which has been applied in the instant case as well, as not maintainable, as indeed u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) where the same is prior to 01.04.2021, i.e., the date on which the corresponding amendment, i.e., with reference to sec.80AC, stands made in s.143(1)(a)(v). As explained therein, the adjustment is outside the scope of s. 143(1)(a)(ii), while that u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) could not be given effect to prior to 01/4/2021, as obtains in the instant case.
No contrary argument stands advanced, or decision relied upon by the Revenue; that cited by it in Kollad SCB Ltd. (supra) found distinguishable. The said order has in fact been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal in other appeals as well, going to the extent of stating it to be a mistake, as in Mavelikara Aided School Employee’s Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 974/Coch/2022, dated 9/10/2023). The decision is supported by orders by other Benches as well.
In view of the foregoing, we find no reason for sustaining the impugned disallowance. We direct accordingly, and the assessee succeeds. It’s appeal having been disposed of, the stay petition becomes infructuous, and is dismissed as such.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed. Order pronounced on December11, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: December 11, 2023 n.p
ITA No.436/Coch/2023& SP 80/Coch/2023 Mukkom Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO Copy to: 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File.
Assistant Registrar ITAT/Cochin
