Ita/137/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kerala State Co-Op.agricultural Rural De

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 ITA.No. 137 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------ ITA 506/COCH/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH -------------------- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONERE OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT : --------------------------------------- KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC, BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/9/2015, THE COURT ON 26-11-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp ITA.No. 137 of 2011 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DT 22/12/2009. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 30//2010. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 23/2/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan & Babu Mathew P. Joseph, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A.No.137 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26[th] day of November, 2015 Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The question whether the respondent falls undersub-section 4 of Section 80P of the Income TaxAct stands answered against it as per judgmentdelivered today in ITA.No.103 of 2011.sub-section 4 of Section 80P of the Income TaxAct stands answered against it as per judgmentdelivered today in ITA.No.103 of 2011. 2.The issue raised in this appeal by the Revenue isas to whether, it having held that the assesseeis not a primary agricultural credit society or aprimary co-operative agricultural and ruraldevelopment bank, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was justified in holding that theassessee is entitled to deduction in terms ofSection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act.as to whether, it having held that the assesseeis not a primary agricultural credit society or aprimary co-operative agricultural and ruraldevelopment bank, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was justified in holding that theassessee is entitled to deduction in terms ofSection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. 3.The learned senior counsel appearing for theRevenue argued that the assessee having beenRevenue argued that the assessee having been ITA137/11 -: 2 :- rightly found to be not a primary agriculturalcredit society or a primary co-operativeagricultural and rural development bank, it isnot entitled to deduction in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. He also pointed out thatthe findings to the contrary as rendered by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal are inconsistentand militate against the other findings in theimpugned order and are wholly unintended by theLegislature and that such dichotomy is contraryto law and hence, perverse. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the assesseeargued that the Tribunal had, in so far as theissue involved in this appeal is concerned, heldafter adverting to the facts and figures that thematter requires to be remitted to the file of theAssessing Officer for consideration of the matterand adjudication of such issues.argued that the Tribunal had, in so far as theissue involved in this appeal is concerned, heldafter adverting to the facts and figures that thematter requires to be remitted to the file of theAssessing Officer for consideration of the matterand adjudication of such issues. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the assesseeargued that the Tribunal had, in so far as theissue involved in this appeal is concerned, heldafter adverting to the facts and figures that thematter requires to be remitted to the file of theAssessing Officer for consideration of the matterand adjudication of such issues.argued that the Tribunal had, in so far as theissue involved in this appeal is concerned, heldafter adverting to the facts and figures that thematter requires to be remitted to the file of theAssessing Officer for consideration of the matterand adjudication of such issues. 5.The contents of the order of the Tribunal in sofar as they relate to the matter in issue in thisappeal, categorically show that the findingsfar as they relate to the matter in issue in thisappeal, categorically show that the findings ITA137/11 -: 3 :- rendered by the Tribunal do not warrant anyinterference, more particularly when the casedoes not involve any substantial question of lawhaving regard to the contents of the firstappellate order issued by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and the manner in which itstands confirmed by the Tribunal to the extent itrelates to the issues sought to be raised in thisappeal. 6.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find anymerit in this appeal by the Revenue. Nosubstantial question of law arises for decisionand the appeal under Section 260A at the instanceof the Revenue as against the impugned order ofthe Tribunal is not sustainable. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge Babu Mathew P. Joseph, Judge Sha/