Ita/22/2016 Of M/S. Vengeri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/21ST PHALGUNA, 1937 ITA.No. 22 of 2016 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 138/COCH/2015 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 16.10.2015. APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------- M/S. VENGERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VENGERI BANK BUILDING, VENGERI POST, KOZHIKODE-673 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI SOMASUNDARAM.C.K. BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.SAJU S.K. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, STANDING COUNSEL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONGWITH ITA 16/2016 ON 11-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A.Nos.16 & 22 of 2016 I.T.A.Nos.16 & 22 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for theappellants and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, and Sri.Christopher Abraham,learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department.appellants and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, and Sri.Christopher Abraham,learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department. 2. The matters raised are interlinked with the issues inI.T.A.No.212 of 2013 and connections, as rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel on all sides. Under such circumstances, weadopt the following substantial questions of law, which wereformulated in I.T.A.No. 212 of 2013 and connections, asquestions that arise from the appeals which are bunched up anddecided through this judgment:I.T.A.No.212 of 2013 and connections, as rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel on all sides. Under such circumstances, weadopt the following substantial questions of law, which wereformulated in I.T.A.No. 212 of 2013 and connections, asquestions that arise from the appeals which are bunched up anddecided through this judgment: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in lawin deciding against the assessee, the issue regardingentitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoringthe fact that the assessee is a primary agriculturalcredit society?case under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in lawin deciding against the assessee, the issue regardingentitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoringthe fact that the assessee is a primary agriculturalcredit society? B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying theexemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961, on the mere ground of belated filing f return bythe assessee?exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961, on the mere ground of belated filing f return bythe assessee? C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyond the periodstipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non est in law and invalid for thepurpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non est in law and invalid for thepurpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying theexemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961, on the mere ground of belated filing f return bythe assessee?exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961, on the mere ground of belated filing f return bythe assessee? C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyond the periodstipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non est in law and invalid for thepurpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non est in law and invalid for thepurpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or is justified inrestricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt atthe 7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason thatthe assessee is not entitled for the status of ruralbranch to claim 10% of the aggregate averageadvances as bad and doubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?restricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt atthe 7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason thatthe assessee is not entitled for the status of ruralbranch to claim 10% of the aggregate averageadvances as bad and doubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Questions (A), (B) and (C) were answered as per the judgmentdated 15.2.2016 in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections. Thosefindings and answers to those questions are incorporated inanswer to questions (A), (B) and (C) formulated herein. A copyof the judgment in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections willstand appended to this judgment.dated 15.2.2016 in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections. Thosefindings and answers to those questions are incorporated inanswer to questions (A), (B) and (C) formulated herein. A copyof the judgment in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and connections willstand appended to this judgment. With the aforesaid, we remit all these matters forreconsideration by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in thelight of the answers rendered herein on substantial questionsof law (A), (B) and (C). The Tribunal will thereupon considerthe issues relating to the bad and doubtful debts and the claimof the assessee in that regard by treating that in all caseswhere exemptions are claimed under section 80P and suchmatters were pending before the assessing authority or beforethe appellate authority, including in these appeals, thequestion of exemption available under Section 80P was stillavailable for decision. sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge sd/-Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj11/3 /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge