Ita/57/2016 Of The Puzhathi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The 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 THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/18TH CHAITHRA, 1938 ITA.No. 57 of 2016 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 268/COCH/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 30-01-2011 APPELLANT: -------------- THE PUZHATHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. C.276 P.O KAKKAD, KANNUR 670 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROJA KUMARI O.P. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.),SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2016, ALONG WITH ITA NO.58/16 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- ITA.Nos.57 and 58 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.K.M.V.Pandalai, 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 creditof 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 credit ITA.57 & 58/16 society? 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.57 & 58/16 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.57 & 58/16 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