THE KOONATHARA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,OTTAPALAM V. ITO, WARD-3, PALAKKAD

ITA 169/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The society, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, did not file a return of income as required under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer, based on information of a cash deposit during the demonetisation period, issued a notice under section 142(1) demanding a return, which was not complied with. Consequently, the assessment was completed without the deduction under section 80P, citing section 80A(5) due to the absence of a return claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of sections 80A(5) and 80P, influenced by recent judicial precedents emphasizing the necessity of filing a return within the prescribed due date to claim deductions under section 80P.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470720 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Prathamika krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangh Ltd., ITA No. 614/Bang/2021, Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker), Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V.P.NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 142(1); 139(1); 139; 80P; 139(4)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. AKA Sathearana Sangam Ltd. P227 Dapcos, Koonathara Ottapalam, Palakkad 679523 [PAN: AAFAT3683G] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer-3 Aayakar Bhavan English Church Road Palakkad 678014 .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri V.P. Narayanan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 24.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2 ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative SocietyLtd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 with the object of promoting milk production and distribution with the mutual participation of the members. The assessee has not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.12,57,210/- in the bank account during demonetisation period, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakkad (hereinafter “the AO”) issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act12.03.2018 calling upon the assessee to file return of income. The assessee did not comply with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Under the circumstance the AO was constrained to complete the assessment by denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act placing reliance on the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act as no claim was made in the return of income. 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, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Prathamika krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangh Ltd., ITA No. 614/Bang/2021 dated 13.06.2022, submitted that even in the absence of return of income deduction u/s. 80P cannot be denied merely because no return of 3 ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative SocietyLtd. income was filed as section 80A(5) has no application in the case no return of income was filed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that the issue in the appeal is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker) overruling its earlier decision in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether or not the CIT(A) was correct in law in confirming the action of the AO denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as no valid return of income was filed by the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case the assessee has not filed valid return of income either under the provisions of section 139 of the Act or in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO. The provisions of sub-section 80A(5) mandates that in order to claim a deduction under the section specified under Chapter VI-A, a claim is required to be made in the return of income. The issue in the present case is settled against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker) wherein it was held as under: - “11. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusal of the statutory provisions, we find that a reading of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the IT Act as they stood prior to 1.4.2018, when the latter provision 4 ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative SocietyLtd. was amended by Finance Act 2018, would reveal that the statutory scheme under the IT Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act as were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, he had to furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, he will not be allowed the deduction, unless the return in question was filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). Thus, it is clear that the statutory scheme permits the allowance of a deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act only if it is made in a return recognised as such under the IT Act, and after 1.4.2018, only if that return is one filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. As the return in these cases, for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the assessee can be seen as a statutory pre-condition for claiming the benefit of deduction under the IT Act. It is trite that a provision for deduction or exemption under a taxing Statute has to be strictly construed against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Thus viewed, a failure on the part of an assessee to comply with the precondition for obtaining the deduction cannot be condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts. 13. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion that we must consider the findings of a Division Bench of this Court in The Chirakkal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. [supra]. The findings therein, that appear to suggest that a claim for deduction under Section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a return filed beyond the time permitted under the IT Act, ignores the perspective that sees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return as a pre-condition for obtaining the benefit of the statutory deduction. The said findings also fly in the face of the express statutory provisions that requires the claim to be made in a return filed by the assessee, 5 ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative SocietyLtd. by which term is meant a valid return under the Act, and therefore have necessarily to be seen as per incuriam. We also find that the subsequent amendments to Section 80AC by the Finance Act 2018 fortifies the view that we have taken for, it makes the claim for deduction under Section 80P conditional on filing a return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim.” Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as no valid return of income was filed by the assessee society and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court prevails over the coordinate bench’s decision of this Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly the appeal sands dismissed. 8. Since the quantum appeal of the assessee is disposed of, the stay application becomes infructuous, hence dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 29th November, 2024 n.p. 6 ITA No. 169/Coch/2024 & SA No. 16/Coch/2024 The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative SocietyLtd. 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 "