Ita/54/2016 Of M/S.vadakkumpad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kozhikode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/18TH CHAITHRA, 1938 ITA.No. 54 of 2016 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 158/COCH/2013 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 07-06-2013 APPELLANT: -------------- M/S.VADAKKUMPAD SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.P.O.VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY,KANNUR- 670 109REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.RAMESHAN P. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SRI.V.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,1ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW ANNEX BUILDING,(NORTH BLOCK), MANANCHIRA,KOZHIKODE- 673 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITHITA NOS.55 AND 56/16 ON 07-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ITA.Nos.54, 55 and 56 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th April, 2016 JUDGMENT Anu Sivaraman, J. We have heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants and Sri.Jose Joseph, learnedstanding 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 upand decided through this judgment: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case under consideration, the Tribunal iscorrect in law in deciding against the assessee,the issue regarding entitlement for exemptionunder section 80P, ignoring the fact that theassessee is a primary agricultural creditsociety?of the case under consideration, the Tribunal iscorrect in law in deciding against the assessee,the issue regarding entitlement for exemptionunder section 80P, ignoring the fact that theassessee is a primary agricultural creditsociety? ITA.54,55 & 56/16 B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying theexemption under section 80P of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on the mere ground of belatedfiling f return by the assessee?exemption under section 80P of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on the mere ground of belatedfiling f return by the assessee? C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyondthe period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4)or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non estin law and invalid for the purpose of decidingexemption under section 80P of the IncomeTax Act, 1961?the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4)or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non estin law and invalid for the purpose of decidingexemption under section 80P of the IncomeTax Act, 1961? D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or isjustified in restricting the provisions for badand doubtful debt at the 7.5% of the grosstotal income, on the reason that the assesseeis not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advancesas bad and doubtful debt, under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?justified in restricting the provisions for badand doubtful debt at the 7.5% of the grosstotal income, on the reason that the assesseeis not entitled for the status of rural branch toclaim 10% of the aggregate average advancesas 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 judgment dated 15.2.2016 in ITA.No.212 of 2013 andconnections. Those findings and answers to those questions areincorporated in answer to questions (A), (B) and (C) formulatedherein. A copy of the judgment in ITA.No.212 of 2013 andconnections will stand appended to this judgment. ITA.54,55 & 56/16 3. Questions (A), (B) and (C) were answered as per the judgment dated 15.2.2016 in ITA.No.212 of 2013 andconnections. Those findings and answers to those questions areincorporated in answer to questions (A), (B) and (C) formulatedherein. A copy of the judgment in ITA.No.212 of 2013 andconnections will stand appended to this judgment. ITA.54,55 & 56/16 With the aforesaid, we remit all these matters forreconsideration by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in thelight of the answers rendered herein on substantial questions oflaw (A), (B) and (C). The Tribunal will thereupon consider theissues relating to the bad and doubtful debts and the claim ofthe assessee in that regard by treating that in all cases whereexemptions are claimed under section 80P and such matterswere pending before the assessing authority or before theappellate authority, including in these appeals, the question ofexemption available under section 80P was still available fordecision. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge