Ita/42/2016 Of The Chamanchery Service Co Operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/10TH CHAITHRA, 1938 ITA.No. 42 of 2016 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 285/COCH/2015 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 26-8-2015 APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------- THE CHAMANCHERY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED P.O. CHEMANCHERRY, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673304 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DHANANJAY NARAYANAN. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJARESPONDENT(S)/REVENUE:---------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT-673001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONGWITH ITA 43/15 ON 30-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =I.T.A.Nos.42 & 43 of 2016 I.T.A.Nos.42 & 43 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of March, 2016 JUDGMENT Anu Sivaraman, J. 1.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for theappellants and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai learned standing counselfor Income Tax Department.appellants and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai learned standing counselfor Income Tax Department. 2.The matters raised are interlinked with the issues inI.T.A.No.212 of 2013 and connections, as rightly pointed outby the learned counsel on all sides. Under such circumstances,we adopt the following substantial questions of law, whichwere formulated in I.T.A.No. 212 of 2013 and connections, asquestions that arise from the appeals which are bunched upand decided through this judgment: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseunder consideration, the Tribunal is correct in law indeciding against the assessee, the issue regardingentitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoring thefact that the assessee is a primary agricultural creditsociety?under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in law indeciding against the assessee, the issue regardingentitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoring thefact that the assessee is a primary agricultural creditsociety? B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying the exemptionunder section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the mereground of belated filing f return by the assessee?under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the mereground of belated filing f return by the assessee? C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyond the periodstipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148can be held as non est in law and invalid for the purpose ofdeciding exemption under section 80P of the Income TaxAct, 1961?stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148can be held as non est in law and invalid for the purpose ofdeciding exemption under section 80P of the Income TaxAct, 1961? D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or is justified inrestricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that theassessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad anddoubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income TaxAct, 1961?restricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that theassessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad anddoubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income TaxAct, 1961? D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or is justified inrestricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that theassessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad anddoubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income TaxAct, 1961?restricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that theassessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad anddoubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income TaxAct, 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. ITA Nos.42 & 43/16 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 sj/30/03 /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge