PANANCHERY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

MA 101/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pananchery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., which filed miscellaneous applications seeking recall of earlier Tribunal orders concerning their eligibility for deductions under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's earlier decisions were based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which ruled that a return of income filed in response to a notice under section 148 cannot be considered valid if not filed within the due date. The Tribunal found no merit in the applications, affirming that the appellant did not meet the necessary conditions to claim the deduction under section 80P.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792292 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM MA Nos. 101 & 102/Coch/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 648 &449/Coch/2024) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2013-14) Pananchery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. .......... Applicant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [PAN: AABAP5815A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent Applicant by: Shri Amaljith P.J., CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) are filed by the appellant co-operative society seeking recall of the orders passed by this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 648 & 649/Coch.2024 dated 27.03.2025 & 30.06.2024, respectively. 2. Since identical facts are involved in these MAs, these MAs are disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant co-operative society filed the present petitions seeking rectification of the orders passed by this Tribunal on the Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos. 101 & 102/Coch/2025 Pananchery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. ground that the petitioner had filed the belated return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) before completion of the assessment. Therefore provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act have no application to the facts of present case. 4. On the other hand, learned Sr. DR had opposed the above submission and submits that the orders passed by the Tribunal are in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker) and the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 cannot be treated as a valid return, since the same was not filed within the due date prescribed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the petitions was with regard to the eligibility of the appellant society for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had not filed regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which was not complied within the due date. Therefore, the question is whether the appellant society was eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P or not. This Tribunal, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker) held that the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80P as there was no claim made in the return of income. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos. 101 & 102/Coch/2025 Pananchery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the said decision had categorically held that the return of income should be filed within the due date contemplated under these provisions. Thus, we do not find any mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the MAs filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, the assessee’s miscellaneous applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 1st December, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "