The ITO, Tirur V. The Edapatta Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Malappuram

MA 33/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5249 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAJJIV
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 80P; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJAR I, AM & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JM M A NO. 33 /COCH/20 20 : ASST.YEAR 2012 - 2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 409 /COCH/201 6 ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 TIRUR . VS. M/S. THE EDAPATTA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, EDAPATTA P.O. MELATTUR MALAPPURAM 679 326. PAN : AADAT4661L . ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SRI. B.SAJJIV , SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SRI.ANIL D.NAIR , ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 09.10 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 . 1 0.2020 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 409 /COCH/201 6 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 . 2. SRI.B.SAJJIV, SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SRI . ANIL D.NAIR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL WAS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT. IT WAS T HE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAVE ORIGINALLY DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS V. ITO [(2016) 384 ITR 490 M A NO. 33 /COCH /20 20. M/S. THE EDAPATTA SCB LIMITED. 2 (KER.)] . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 19.03.2019 IN ITA NO.97 OF 2016 IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [(2019) 414 ITR 67 (KER.) (FB) (HC)] , WHEREIN T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS (SUPRA) IS NOT GOOD LAW AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER THE BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SUBSEQUENT BINDING OF THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, WHICH HAS REVERSED THE EARLIER DECISION, DOES CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 24 TH OCTO BER, 2016 . THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) IS DATED 19.03.2019 AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ONLY ON 30.09.2019. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS TO BE FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FAR BEYOND THE SAID TIME LIM IT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND THE TRIBUNAL NOT HAVING THE POWER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT TO CONDONE DELAY, THE M A NO. 33 /COCH /20 20. M/S. THE EDAPATTA SCB LIMITED. 3 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE . IT HAS NOT HAVING THE POWER TO READ IN OR READ OUT OF A PROVISION OF LAW. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS LAID DOWN THE LAW AND THE SPECIFIC PROVISION RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. ADMITTEDLY, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 . THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 30.09.2019. THE SI X MONTH PERIOD IN THE PRESENT CASE EXPIRED ON 30 TH APRIL, 2017 . 6. HERE WE MUST SPECIFICALLY MENTION THAT THE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2), WHICH READS AS FOLLOW: - 254(2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN [SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED], WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER. 7. IT SHOWS THAT THE TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTH IS BINDING ON THE HANDS OF THE TRIBUNAL . THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT V. ITAT [WRIT PETITION NO.2858 OF 2019 DATE D 24.01.2020]. 8. THIS BEING SO, AS SIX MONTH PERIOD FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED HAS EXPIRED, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 409 /COCH/201 6 CANNOT BE AMENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. M A NO. 33 /COCH /20 20. M/S. THE EDAPATTA SCB LIMITED. 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER COCHIN ; DATED : 9 TH OCTOBER , 2020 . DEVADAS G* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, COCHIN 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE. 4. THE PR.CIT KOZHIKODE. 5. DR, ITAT, COCHIN 6 . GUARD FILE.