Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH :COCHIN
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY S
O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.11.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. It is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal is illegal and unsustainable.
2. It is respectfully submitted that great hardship, prejudice and monetory loss is caused on account of dismissal of the appeal
3. The appellant is a primary agricultural society and is eligible for deductions u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the orders of the assessing officer and NFAC is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, AIR 2021 SC 612 has decided the issue in favor of the appellant. The decision of the Apex Court is the law of the land and is binding on all authorities. The 1st appellate authority had not considered the decision of the 5. Honn'ble Apex Court in Mavilayi (supra). Therefore, the 1st appellate authority had seriously erred in not considering the decision of the Apex Court and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner most humbly prays the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, may kindly be pleased to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and the consequential demand and allow the appeal and render justice. 3. The assessee is a registered primary agricultural credit co-operative society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs.3,58,880/- after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), amounting to Rs.2,35,69,214/- and under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the assessment by disallowing entire deduction claimed under 80P and made an addition of Rs.2,36,69,214/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), after considering various submissions of the assessee, upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs. CIT of 2016 dated 09.07.2018
The learned AR submitted that the decision of the lower authorities is violative of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs. CIT AIR (2021)(SC) 612. The learned AR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Kerala High Court which has not been considered by the CIT(A) and accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is to be quashed.
We heard the learned AR. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we noticed that the CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance under section 80P of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra). The decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has not been considered by the CIT(A). In view of this, we remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee’s case in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) and decide in accordance with law, after giving suitable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In view of our above decision stay petition in SA 88/Coch/22 has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.