Krishna Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, ATHANI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, BELAGAVI

ITA 1/PAN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6336 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1/PAN./2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Jain Peth, Athani Tal. Athani Dist. Belagavi. PIN – 591 304 Karnataka. PAN AAAAK0261G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, BELAGAVI – 590 001 Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2017- 2018, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057343279(1), dated 25.01.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 1. “Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed, the appeal on the ground that the Appellant being Cooperative Society is doing transactions with different class of members of the society is erroneous in law. 2. Because, the learned Income Tax Officer denied the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the premises of, Appellant is doing transactions with different class of members of the society is erroneous in law, and hence the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act be allowed. 3. Because, the Appellant is a Cooperative credit society and having different class of members as per the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959, and doing transactions with such members is permissible under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. 1959 and hence the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme court of India on the similar matter in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 7343-7350 of 2019 in the case of "The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & Others" is squarely applicable to us and hence we are eligible to claim the deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add and or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)/NFAC's detailed discussion disallowing the impugned deduction claim thereby drawing a distinction between the regular vis-à-vis nominal/associate members as under : 4 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 5 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 6 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 7 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 8 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 9 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 10 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands and find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments. This is for the precise reason that the hon’ble apex court’s decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., vs., CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) has already rejected the Revenue’s very stand seeking to draw a distinction between a cooperative society regular members having voting and all other rights as against nominal/associate members. Learned DR could not refer to a single provision in the State Cooperative Law which could be held to be providing for a different stipulation of the latter category of members vis-à-vis in the Kerala State Cooperative Law forming subject matter of discussion in the hon’ble apex court. 5. Faced with this situation, Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee’s impugned deduction claim involving interest income derived from cooperative/public sector bank(s) is also not entitled for the impugned deduction. 6. We hardly see any reason to accept the Revenue’s instant vehement objections in light of The Hukkeri Taluk Agri Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Dist. Belagavi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Belagavi ITA.No.30/PAN./2018 dated 11 I.T.A.No. 1/PAN./2024 16.11.2021 and The Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., vs. CCIT [2017] 396 ITR 371 (AP); rejecting the Revenue’s very arguments. We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground and leave it open for the assessing authority to frame the consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th June, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Panaji concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.