Ita v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 9TH BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 59 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 233/Coch/2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM DATED 1.12.2017 APPELLANT/Appellant/Assessee: THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.HEAD OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002.BY ADVS.S.ARUN RAJC.T.SUJA RESPONDENT/Respondent/Revenue: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.08.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.24/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA Nos.59 of 2018 & 24 of 2019 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 9TH BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 24 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 234/2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Appellant/Assessee: THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,HEAD OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002.BY ADVS.S.ARUN RAJSMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENT/Respondent/Revenue: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.08.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.59/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT ITA Nos.59 of 2018 and 24 of 2019 S.V.Bhatti, J. Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Ltd./assessee is theappellant. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode/Revenue is therespondent. 2. The appeals are filed aggrieved by the following orders. 3. The Tribunal by relying on the principles laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.[1] dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as follows: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material onrecord. The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case forthe assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA Nos.168 &record. The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case forthe assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA Nos.168 & 169/Coch/2015 vide order dated 19.11.2015 had decided an identicalissue against the assessee. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunalhad followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court inthe case of CIT v Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (supra). The relevantfindings of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in assessee's own case for theA.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 reads as follows: "Going by the ordinary meaning of rural branch, we feel onlybranches of the bank located in rural areas are covered.When the legislature adopts population as the basis forclassification of rural branches, that too, with reference tothe last census report, we feel the basic unit as available foridentification of rural area in the census report can belegitimately adopted. So much so, we feel the abovemeaning of the rural area contained in the census reportwere in revenue village is treated as unit of rural area, canbe rightly adopted. So much so, 'place' referred to in theabove definition clause for the purpose of identifying thebranch of bank as a rural branch with reference to itslocation is the revenue village." "Going by the ordinary meaning of rural branch, we feel onlybranches of the bank located in rural areas are covered.When the legislature adopts population as the basis forclassification of rural branches, that too, with reference tothe last census report, we feel the basic unit as available foridentification of rural area in the census report can belegitimately adopted. So much so, we feel the abovemeaning of the rural area contained in the census reportwere in revenue village is treated as unit of rural area, canbe rightly adopted. So much so, 'place' referred to in theabove definition clause for the purpose of identifying thebranch of bank as a rural branch with reference to itslocation is the revenue village." In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in thecase of CIT v Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (supra) and the ITAT order inassessee's own case for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, we hold that theCIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's action inrestricting the claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act for theassessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. It is orderedaccordingly." The principle applicable to the controversy between the parties is applied by the Tribunal, no ground for interference is made out. The Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-VIJU ABRAHAMJUDGE css/ APPENDIX OF ITA 24/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXUREANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.3.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE AY 2011-12.ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2017 PASSEDBY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI FOR THE AY 2011-12.ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1.12.2017PASSED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN FOR THE AY 2011-12. APPENDIX OF ITA 59/2018