THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI V. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

ITA 848/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) disallowing a deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The initial return filed by the appellant was processed by the CPC, which disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the return was not filed within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant's subsequent appeal was delayed significantly, attributed to the unawareness of the intimation from the CPC and the death of their tax consultant. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47285 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JOJO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 143(1); 139(1); 80P

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 848 /Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Vellathooval P.O., Idukki 685563 [PAN: AACAT4954B] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & TPS, Thodupuzha Appellant by: Shri C.A. Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09.04.2025 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)-2, Guwahati [CIT(A)], dated 14.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to members. The return of income for AY 2019-20 was filed on 17.03.2020 disclosing Nil income after claiming deduction 2 ITA No. 848/Coch/2024 Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs. 60,48,915/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 06.07.2020 disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not fled within the due date specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1268 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was not aware of the intimation issued by the CPC and the delay is also caused due the death of the Tax Consultant, namely Shri E.M. Sabu. The petition filed for condonation of delay reads as under: - \"The Appellant was not having any intimation demanding tax from the Department. The appellant came to know about the order from the Income Tax site only few days ago. The Appellant didnt get an opportunity to substantiate the eligibility to claim 80P deduction which appellant was eligible and again Department was allowing the claim regularly in previous years. Again, tax auditor of the Appellant namely CA. EM Sabu died recently. Hence, kindly condone the delay in fling the appeal due to reasons beyond the control of appellant. Also, kindly note that the appellant will be in huge financial crisis if the demand persist.\" However the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay by holding that no corroborative evidence was filed to show that the appellant was not aware of the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also held that in the absence of evidence to show the demise 3 ITA No. 848/Coch/2024 Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. of the Tax Consultant, Shri E.M. Sabu, the explanation cannot be accepted as reasonable. Accordingly he refused to condone the delay. Even on merits, the CIT(A) held that the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay as the delay had occurred on account of the death of the Chartered Accountant and the appellant is not aware of the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. He also produced death certificate of one Shri E.M. Sabu. Further he submits that on merits the issue is clearly covered in favour of the appellant society and also submits that the CBDT has extended time for filing the return of income upto 30.11.220 and, therefore, he submits that the intimation issued by the CPC is illegal. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR submits that the CBDT had extended the due date for filing only revised return for AY 2019 up to 30.11.2020 vide circular F. No. 225/150/2020- ITA-II dated 30.09.2020. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the first instance we shall deal with the issue whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1286 days in filing the appeal before him. The petition 4 ITA No. 848/Coch/2024 Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. seeking condonation of delay before the CIT(A) was extracted supra. From the above petition it would be clear that the appellant is seeking condonation of delay on the ground that it is unaware of the intimation issued by the CPC and on account of death of the Chartered Accountant, Shri E.M. Sabu. But the said petition could not establish as to how it was aware of this intimation issued by the CPC and how it had come to know of the intimation subsequently. Further, it is no clear as to whether the said Chartered Accountant, Mr. E.M. Sabu was handling the income tax matter of the appellant society. Whether the email ID of the Chartered Accountant was given to the Department. Furthermore, the CIT(A) clearly stated that the intimation was served on the appellant society twice. Therefore, the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal before he CIT(A) cannot said to be bona fide and therefore, we are of he considered opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and dismissing the appeal. 8. Further we find justification for the adjustment made by the CPC. The contention of the appellant that it had filed the return of income within the extended date by the CBDT cannot be accepted. The extension was only for belated and revised returns as evident from the circular F. No. 225/150/2020-ITA-II dated 30.09.2020 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 5 ITA No. 848/Coch/2024 Vellathooval Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- GEORGE GEORGE K. VICE PRESIDENT (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 9th April, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "