DCIT, Virudhunagar V. Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhunagar

ITA 1831/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7741 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL J
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& ' () BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1831 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12) & C.O.NO.131/MDS./2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VIRUDHUNAGAR CIRCLE, VIRUDHUNAGAR. VS. M/S.PANDYAN GRAMA BANK , 2-70-1,COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, VIRDHUNAGAR. PAN AAAAP 0895 P ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR ) / APPELLANT BY : DR.B.NISCHAL, JCIT,DR / RESPONDENT BY : MR.SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA,ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 29.02.2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2016 . / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- 3, MADURAI DATED 18.05.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . ITA NO.1831/MDS/2015 2 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE DAY DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL NOTED BY THE REGISTRY. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A LETTER DA TED 02.11.2015 SEEKING CONDONATION OF ONE DAY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE LD.D.R HAS EXPLAINED TO THE BENCH THAT IT IS DUE TO ADMINI STRATIVE REASONS. WE FIND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT REASON IN FILING T HE APPEAL BELATEDLY AND THEREFORE, IT IS CONDONED AND ADMITTED FOR ADJU DICATION. 3.1 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT B Y THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN SUP PORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.09.2011 ADMITTING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.45,10,15,623/ - U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.03.2014 ITA NO.1831/MDS/2015 3 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCT ION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE , THOUGH THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1088,1091, 1092 /MDS./2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 23. 08.2012. THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THAT THIS DEDUCTI ON IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOT REACHED ITS FI NALITY AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST TRIBUNALS ORDER BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. AGAINST THIS ASSESSEE WAS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE A PPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.572 & 595/MDS/2014 VIDE ORDER DATE D 26.08.2014 WHEREIN HELD THAT:- 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.1088, 10 91 & 1092/MDS/2012 DATED 23.08.2012 AND FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) WAS ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 007-08 TO 2009-10 OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INV OLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ASS ESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO 1941/MDS/2009 DATED 13-08-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON MERITS HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1831/MDS/2015 4 WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CON TENTIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS A GO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THEN THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2) (A) (I) OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE TO IT. THE ONLY DISPUTE HERE IS THAT ASSESSEE BEING A REGIONAL RURAL BANK ESTABLISHED UNDER RRB ACT, 1976, WAS TO BE TREATED AS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK OR COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY NO DOUBT, SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT 2006 CLEARLY TAKES A COOPERATIVE BANK OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF DEDU CTION AVAILABLE UNDER 80P(2)(A)) OF THE ACT THUS, IF THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK, IT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH DEDUCTION C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN VIEW OF SECTIONS 22 ARID 23 OF THE RRB ACT, 1976, IT WAS TO BE TREATED AS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE SAID SECTIONS HAVING NOT BEEN OVERRIDDEN, IT COULD ONLY BE TREATED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FURTHER, RELYING ON DEFINITION OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK AS GIVEN IN THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS NEITHER A STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NOR A CENTRAL COOPERATIVE B ANK NOR A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK, AND THEREFORE, NOT A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AT ALL. WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, THERE IS MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS TO BE TREATED AS COOPERATIVE SO CIETY IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RRB ACT, 1976. IF SO, IT WO ULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 8. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE GAVE A FIN DING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET Y IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT, 1 976 IF SO, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8OP(2)(A, OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THI S TRIBUNAL, WE ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE SUSTAINED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY ITA NO.1831/MDS/2015 5 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE CI TED SUPRA AND LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AS SUCH WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) . THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND CROSS O BJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 18 TH OF MARCH,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ' # $ . % & ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) ( ( ( ) * + ) ) ' CHANDRA POOJARI ', JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 18 TH MARCH,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. -.,, /0,10 /COPY TO: , 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , 2,'' /CIT(A) 4. , 2 /CIT 5. 034, 5 /DR 6. 4,6 /GF