THE NADAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KOZHIKODE V. JCIT, RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

MA 111/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., which filed a miscellaneous application against an order concerning a penalty for accepting cash deposits, under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the appellant, being a co-operative society, is subject to the restrictions of section 269SS, contrary to the appellant's claim of being a co-operative bank. The appellant sought to recall the Tribunal's order, arguing that it had not considered several earlier decisions. However, the Tribunal found that these decisions were not presented during the original hearing, and thus their non-consideration did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790820 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITO v. Mullankolly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Sulthanbattery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. JCIT, ITO v. Madikamala Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., NSS Karayogam v. CIT, Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. AO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM MA No. 111/Coch/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 454/Coch/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. .......... Applicant Kallachi, Kozhikode 673506 [PAN: AACAT6179Q] vs. Jt. CIT, Range-2, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Applicant by: Shri D.R. Pradeep K.P., Advocate 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 The present Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the appellant co-operative bank seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 957/Coch/2024 dated 14.05.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16 on the ground that the Tribunal had passed the order without considering the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in the following cases: - i) ITO v. Mullankolly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. in ITA No. 729/Coch/2023 dated 25.09.2024 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 111/Coch/2025 Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. ii) Sulthanbattery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. JCIT in ITA Nos. 319 & 320/Coch/2023 dated 14.08.2024 iii) ITO v. Madikamala Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. in ITA Nos. 18 & 19/Coch/2024 dated 07.11.2024 2. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR strongly spposed the above submissions. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the appeal is with regard to the liability of the petitioner to penalty u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). There is no dispute about the factum of accepting deposits in cash. The only contention of the appellant was that it is co-operative bank and, therefore, provisions of section 269SS of the Act are not attracted. This Tribunal, after making reference to provisions of section 269SS had categorically held that the appellant is not a co-operative bank but a co-operative society following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of NSS Karayogam v. CIT [2020] 271 Taxman 193 confirmed the levy of penalty. The contention of the petitioner was that the Tribunal had not followed the earlier decisions of this Tribunal, thus, a mistake had crept in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal should be recalled, cannot be accepted as it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 111/Coch/2025 Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the assessee that these decisions were not referred to during the course of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, non-consideration of the above decisions does not constitute a mistake apparent from record in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ernest Exports Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 577. Moreover, the law laid down in the above judgements are contrary to the plain provisions of section 269SS of the Act the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of NSS Karayogam (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. AO [2023] 458 ITR 384 In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any mistake apparent from record capable of being rectified in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 254(2) of the Act. 3. In the result, the assessee’s miscellaneous application stands 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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 111/Coch/2025 Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 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 "