AYYANTHOLE PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 471,KARIYATTUKARA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

ITA 361/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the AO's decision to disallow a deduction claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite a delay of 448 days, attributing the delay to the appellant's lack of awareness of the CIT(A)'s order until receiving a 'Give Effect' order. The main legal issue was whether the appellant qualified as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, which is necessary to claim the deduction under the specified section. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and AO had not adequately considered the appellant's evidence and thus remitted the case back to the AO for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708592 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALAN P.DEV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 361/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd........... Appellant Kariyattukara P.O., Thrissur 680611 [PAN: AACAA3641G] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Alan P. Dev, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22.12.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is classified as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to members. The return of 2 ITA No. 361/Coch/2025 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. income was filed 30.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 1,79,87,945/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur vide order dated 23.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,79,39,378/- by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant did not receive the order passed u/s. 250 of the Act. It became aware of the order only on receipt of the Give Effect order on 14.02.2025. Thus, he submitted that the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) till the passing of consequential order to the CIT(A)’s order. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay had occurred on account of factors which are beyond its control. In the absence of any material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3 ITA No. 361/Coch/2025 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as the CIT(A) had denied the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) for the failure of the assessee to discharge the onus of proving that it is a a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. However, the CIT(A) on consideration of the certificate held that since it is very old, the appellant cannot be granted deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law that in the absence of licence to carry on business of banking the appellant cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction that the appellant shall adduce evidence to prove that the appellant is a primary agricultural society. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 15th July, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 361/Coch/2025 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "