The ITo, Ward-3, Tirur, Tirur V. M/s.Pulikkal Service co-op bank Ltd, Malappuram

MA 59/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5240 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 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: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAJJIV
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM KUMAR MENON
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 80P; 201; 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. 59 /COCH/20 20 : ASST.YEAR 201 3 - 201 4 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 393 /COCH/2017) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 TIRUR . VS. M/S. PULICKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, TRIKALANGODE P.O. MALAPPURAM 673 637. PAN : AACAP5428N . ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SRI.B.SAJJIV, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SRI.RAM KUMAR MENON DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 1 0 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10 . 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. 393 /COCH/2017 DATED 12 TH JUNE , 2018. 2. SRI.B.SAJJIV, SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SRI . RAM KUMAR MENON , 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 THE SUBMISS ION 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 (KER.)] . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE FULL BENCH M A NO. 59 /COCH /20 20. M/S. PULIKKAL SCB LIMITED. 2 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 THE 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 JURISDICTIONAL HIG H 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 12 TH JUNE , 2018. TH E 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 1 0.09.2019. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 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 LIMIT. IT WAS TH E 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. 59 /COCH /20 20. M/S. PULIKKAL 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 STATU T E. 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 PO WERS 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 12 TH JUNE , 2018. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 10 .09.2019. THE SIX MONTH PERIOD IN THE PRESENT CASE EXPIRED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2020. 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 O F 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 [A SSESSING] 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 DATED 24.01.2 020]. 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. 393 /COCH/2017 CANNOT BE AMENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. M A NO. 59 /COCH /20 20. M/S. PULIKKAL 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.