Decent Junction Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Kollam V. The ITO Ward 2(1), Kollam

ITA 185/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Decent Junction Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which appealed against the denial of a deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The deduction was initially denied by the Income Tax Officer due to the late filing of the return, which was beyond the specified deadline. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO, where it was determined that such adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(ii) were not maintainable prior to the amendment of section 143(1)(a)(v) on 01/04/2021. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115408 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.185/Coch/2023: Asst.Year:2019-2020 Decent Junction Service Co- operative Bank Limited, Q133 Chentapure PO Kollam – 691 577 [PAN: AABAD6583F] vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Kollam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’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, by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide order dated 13.02.2023. 2. 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 25.9.2020, 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.2,75,14,814, was accordingly disallowed vide Intimation u/s.143(1), raising a demand for Rs.1,19,32,73. ITA No.185/Coch/2023 (AY 2019-20) De c e n t J u nc t i o n Se r g i c e C o - o p Ba nk L t d v . I T O 2 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 sec.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. 4. No contrary argument stands advanced, or decision relied upon by the Revenue; that cited by it in Kollad SCB Ltd. (supra) found distinguishable. The appellant has in fact placed decisions by the Tribunal, holding to the same effect,in it’s compilation. Under the circumstances, we find little merit in the Revenue’s case, and the assessee, accordingly, succeeds. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on September 29, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- (Manomohan Das) Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: September 29, 2023 Devadas G* 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