Ita/12/2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Pazhavangadikkara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FRIDAY, THE 2 DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946ITA NO. 12 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2018 IN ITA NO.202OF 2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHAPPELLANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDETN/REVENUE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM.BY ADVS.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE THE PAZHAVANGADIKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,PAZHAVANGADIKKARA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 673.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.R.SREEJITHSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSHRI.GOKULRAJ L.SMT. ARYA ANIL THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T ============ Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The issue involved in this Appeal pertains to the entitlementof the respondent-assessee to the benefit of the deduction underSection 80P of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short). 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment, Sri.Jose Joseph, brings to our notice a decision of thisCourt dated 14.03.2023 in I.T.Appeal No.120 of 2019, where it washeld that in view of the express provisions of Section 80A(5) of theAct, a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act can be madeby an assessee only in a return filed within the time prescribed forfiling such returns under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section186 of the Act. In as much as in the instant case, the assessee hadnot filed any valid return, as per the statutory provisionsaforementioned, within the time permitted by the statute, we findthat the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act, could nothave been allowed, as was done by the Appellate Tribunal in theorders impugned in the appeal. In addition, we also find that byvirtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha [1996 (220) ITR 67 (SC)], since the respondent-assessee had not filed a valid return in terms of Sections 139(1),139(4), 142(1) or Section 186 of the Act, he could not have claimedthe deduction u/s 80P of the Act in a revised return since a revisedreturn is, by definition, a return that revises an earlier return filed.In the instant case, since there was no valid return originally filed,there was no question of revising it either. 3. Thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court inKumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra), as also our judgmentdated 14.03.2023 in I.T.Appeal NO.120 of 2019, this appeal isallowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal andanswering the questions of law raised in favour of the revenue andagainst the assessee. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- smm SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE APPENDIX OF ITA 12/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURESANNEXURE AASSESSMENTORDERU/S.143(3)DTD.27/12/2016.ANNEXURE BCIT(A)'SORDERNO.ITAT.38/CIT(A)/KTM/2016-17 DATED 26/02/2018.ANNEXURE CITAT'S ORDER IN ITA NO.202/COCH/2018 DATED09/07/2018.