Remanded

The Azhikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016ITA/14/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple Income Tax Appeals by remitting them to the Tribunal. The court held that belated returns are not non est for section 80P claims and amended law regarding debt recognition should encourage rather than deny exemptions.

What did the court decide?

Matters remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration in light of answers to substantial questions of law regarding bail return exemption and debt deduction limits.

The Azhikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

ITA.No. 14 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 326/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 24-05-2013

¶7

APPELLANT(S):

¶8

THE AZHIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AZHIKODE KANNUR - 670 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.J.MATHEWS SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

INCOME TAX OFFICER

¶12

WARD - I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNUR - 670 006.

¶13

R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶14

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH ITA.No.3 of 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ITA.No. 14 of 2014

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21.9.12 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOZHIKODE.

¶20

ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF ORDER IN ITA.326/COCH/2012, DATED 24.5.2013, ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH.

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

PS TO JUDGE

¶23

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶24

¶25

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶26

ITA.Nos.14/2014, 3, 83, 85, 99, 101, 102, 107, 109, 127, 128, 143, 159, 197, 198, 199, 200, 209 215, 220, 227, 229, 230, 231, 235, 236, 242, 243 & 245 of 2015, 5 and 8 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 16^th February, 2016 JUDGMENT

¶28

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶29

We have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department.

¶30

The matters raised are interlinked with the issues in I.T.A.No.212 of 2013 and connections, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel on all sides. Under such circumstances, we adopt the following substantial questions of law, which were formulated in I.T.A.No. 212 of 2013 and connections, as questions that arise from the appeals which are bunched up and decided through this judgment:

¶31

A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in law in deciding against the assessee, the issue regarding entitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoring the fact that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society?

¶32

¶33

ITA.3/16 and connected cases

¶34

B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying the exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the mere ground of belated filing of return by the assessee?

¶35

C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non est in law and invalid for the purpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

¶36

D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or is justified in restricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the 7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that the assessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch to claim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad and doubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

¶37

Questions (A), (B) and (C) were answered as per the

¶38

judgment dated 15.2.2016 in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections. Those findings and answers to those questions are incorporated in answer to questions (A), (B) and (C) formulated herein. A copy of the judgment in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections will stand appended to this judgment.

¶39

¶40

ITA.3/16 and connected cases

¶41

With the aforesaid, we remit all these matters for reconsideration by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the light of the answers rendered herein on substantial questions of law (A), (B) and (C). The Tribunal will thereupon consider the issues relating to the bad and doubtful debts and the claim of the assessee in that regard by treating that in all cases where exemptions are claimed under section 80P and such matters were pending before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority, including in these appeals, the question of exemption available under section 80P was still available for decision.

¶42

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶43

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

vgs18/2

The Azhikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Azhikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darussalam Arabic College Committee Vs v.P.Said Mullakkoya Thangal

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Babu Vs State of Kerala

Yahsildar,Vadakara Taluk Vs Sree Gokulam Educational & Medical Trust

M/S. Lotus 8A Part Hotels Vs State of Kerala

Siju John Vs State of Kerala