M/s Divya Jyothi Credit Co-operative Society Lmited , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2347/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8665 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Reasonable cause
• Section: 80P; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2347 (BANG) 2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 14) M/S. DIVYA JYOTHI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. , APPELLANT NO. 39, 8 TH F MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 3 RD BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011. PAN. AAAAD2194B VS THE ITO, WARD 7 (2) (1), BENGALURU. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 03-12-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 7, BENGALURU DATED 05.06.2018 FOR A. Y. 2 013 14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - GROUND -1. THE APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF PROVID ING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY WHICH IS COVERED UNDER LATTER P ART OF THE SECTION 80P (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE SOCIETY IS NOT CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE BANKING AND ALSO NOT REGISTERED AS A BANK UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION A CT. CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING REGISTRATION UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT IS AN OFFENCE AND ATTRACTS P ENAL AND PROSECUTION PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION AC T. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80P (4) CLEARLY MENTIONED TH AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT SUBSECTION CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED IN PART-V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN SECTION 56 IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT IS AS UNDER: ' (CC-I): CO-OPERATIVE BANK MEANS A STATE CO-OPERAT IVE BANK, A CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK AND A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK' ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 2 '(CC-II): CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MEANS A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY, THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATION TO ITS MEMBERS AND INCLUDES A CO-OPERATIVE LAND MORTGA GE BANK. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION THE SOCIETY I S NOT A BANK AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 80P(4) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS SOCIETY. FURTHER, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAM ITHA, BAGALKOT V/S. CIT ( APPEAL NO.5006/2013) HAS HELD THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80 P IS ALLOWABLE TO THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. GROUND-2. THE ACTUAL FACT IS THE SOCIETY HAS ONLY ONE CLASS O F MEMBERS I.E., PERMANENT MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION AND VOTING, AND DO NOT HAVE ANY NOMINAL MEMBERS. THE FACT WAS REITERATED AND THE RELEVANT DETAILS GI VEN IN THE AUDITORS REPORT REGARDING MEMBERSHIP WAS PRODUCED BEFORE BOT H THE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND WENT ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE BYE LAWS DO NOT PREVENT AC CEPTING DEPOSIT FROM PUBLIC. COMING TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS DISREGA RDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND OPPOSED TO NATURAL JU STICE. HENCE THE LEARNED AO AND CIT (A) ARE NOT CORRECT IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SOCIETY IS A BANK AND DISALLOWI NG THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80(P). THE CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RECE NT DECISION OF HONOURABLE SC IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SO CIETY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO.10245 OF 2017 FOR DISALLOWING THE I NTEREST EARNED BY THE SOCIETY. THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT HAS INTER ALIA HELD TH AT: 'WE MAY MENTION AT THE OUTSET THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IS A BENEVO LENT PROVISION WHICH IS ENACTED BY THE PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO ENCO URAGE AND PROMOTE GROWTH OF CO-OPERATIVE SECTOR IN THE ECONOM IC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY. IT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE READ LIBERALL Y, REASONABLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE (SEE - BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITE D, BOMBAY V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III, BOMBAY (1992) 3 SCC 78). IT IS ALSO TRITE THAT SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS TO EFFECTUATE THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT TO DEFEAT IT (SEE - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY & ORS. V. MAHIND RA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ORS. (1983) 4 SCC 392). THEREFOR E, IT HARDLY NEEDS TO BE EMPHASISED THAT ALL THOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW 9F SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ARE EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) THEREOF. CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2) GIVES EXEMPTION QF WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANYON E OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (2).' (II) SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH SUB-SECTION ( I) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2), IT RECOGNISES TWO KINDS OF CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMELY: (I) THOSE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKI NG AND; (II) THOSE ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 3 PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 3 (1992 ) 3 SCC 78 4 (1983) 4 SCC 392 17 20) IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE COOPER ATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED & ORS. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1998) 5 SCC 48, THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH CLASSES OF S OCIETIES COVERED BY SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: '6. THE CLASSES OF SOCIETIES COVERED BY SECTION 80- P OF THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (A) ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BANKING AND PRO VIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS; XX XX XX 7. WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE PROVISION IS INTRODUCED W ITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING GROWTH OF COOPERATIVE SEC TOR IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY AND IN PURSUANCE OF TH E DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE CORRECT WAY OF READING THE DIFF ERENT HEADS OF EXEMPTION ENUMERATED IN THE SECTION WOULD BE TO TRE AT EACH AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT HEAD OF EXEMPTION. WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF AN INCOME OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT FROM TAX WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS W HETHER INCOME FELL WITHIN ANY OF THE SEVERAL HEADS OF EXEMPTION. IF IT FELL WITHIN ANY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION, IT WOULD BE FREE FROM TAX NOTWIT HSTANDING THAT THE CONDITIONS OF ANOTHER HEAD OF EXEMPTION ARE NOT SAT ISFIED AND SUCH INCOME IS NOT FREE FROM TAX UNDER THAT HEAD OF EXEM PTION...' (III) IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. PUNJAB STATE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (2008) 300 ITR 24 (PUNJAB & HAR YANA H.C.), WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HIGH COU RT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HELD AS FOLLOWS: '8. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P WERE INTRODUCED W ITH A VIEW 5 (1998) 5 SCC 48 6 (2008) 300 ITR 24 (PUNJAB & HARYA NA H.C.) 18 TO ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING THE GROWTH OF THE CO-OPER ATIVE SECTOR IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY AND IN PURSUANCE O F THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF EX EMPTION ENUMERATED IN THE SECTION ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT HEADS OF EXEMPTION AND ARE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH. WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF AN INCOME OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT FRONT TAX, THEN IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER SUCH INCOME FELL WITHIN ANY OF THE SEVERAL HEADS OF EXEMPTION. IF IT FELL WITHIN ANY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION,.... IT MEANS THAT A COOPERAT IVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND A COOPER ATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WILL BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THIS SUB-CLAUSE. THE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE COVERED UNDER THIS SUB- CLAUSE. XX XX XX 13. SO, IN OUR VIEW, IF THE INCOME OF A SOCIETY IS FALLING WITHIN ANY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION, IT HAS TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX N OTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CONDITION OF OTHER HEADS OF EXEMPTION ARE NOT SATISFIED. A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT WOULD INDICATE THE ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 4 MANNER IN WHICH THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID PROVIS IONS IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED. WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO RES TRICT THE EXEMPTION TO A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, IT WAS SO MADE CLEAR AS IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE (F) WITH REFERENCE TO A MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THAT A PRIMARY SOCIETY ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING MILK IS ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTION WHILE DENYING THE SAME TO A FEDERAL MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.' (IV) THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT CORRE CTLY ANALYSES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT AND IT IS IN T UNE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED (SUPRA). (V) WITH THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) BY THE FI NANCE ACT, 2006, WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A PROVISO TO THE AFORESAI D PROVISION, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT SUCH A DEDUCTION SHALL NOT BE ADMIS SIBLE TO A CO- OPERATIVE BANK. HOWEVER, IF IT IS A PRIMARY AGRICUL TURE CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEV ELOPMENT BANK, THE DEDUCTION WOULD STILL BE PROVIDED. THUS, CO-OPE RATIVE BANKS ARE NOW SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. (VI) UNDOUBTEDLY, IF ONE HAS TO GO BY THE AFORESAID DEFINITION OF 'CO- OPERATIVE BANK', THE APPELLANT DOES NOT GET COVERED THEREBY. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN ORDER TO DO TH E BUSINESS OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A LICEN CE FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, WHICH THE APPELLANT DOES NOT POSSESS . NOT ONLY THIS, AS NOTICED ABOVE, THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAS ITSELF CLARIFIED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THAT O F A COOPERATIVE BANK. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT COME WITH IN THE MISCHIEF OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P. FURTHER IT WAS HELD IN THE SAID CASE ON THE FACTS T HAT: (VII) SO FAR SO GOOD. HOWEVER, IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR DISENTITLING THE APPELLANT FROM GET TING THE DEDUCTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IS NOT SUB-SE CTION (4) THEREOF WHAT HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFT ER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT, IS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE IN VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E MACSA UNDER WHICH IT IS FORMED. IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CATERING TO TWO DISTINCT CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. THE FIRST CATEGORY IS THAT OF RESIDENT MEMBERS OR ORDINARY ME MBERS. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DIFFICULTY AS JAR AS THIS CATEGORY IS CO NCERNED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CARVED OUT ANOTHER CATEGORY OF 'NOMINA L MEMBERS'. THESE ARE THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE MAKING DEPOSITS WIT H THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LOANS, ETC. AND, IN FA CT, THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS IN REAL SENSE. MOST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS WITH THIS SECOND CATEGORY OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN GIVIN G DEPOSITS WHICH ARE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSITS WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN MA XIMUM RETURNS. A PORTION OF THESE DEPOSITS IS UTILISED TO ADVANCE GO LD LOANS, ETC. TO THE ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 5 MEMBERS OF THE FIRST CATEGORY. IT IS FOUND, AS A MA TTER OF FACT, THAT THE DEPOSITORS AND BORROWERS ARE QUIET DISTINCT. IN REA LITY, SUCH ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT OF FINANCE BUSINESS AND CANNO T BE TERMED AS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELL ANT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF GRANTING LOANS TO GENERAL PUBLIC AS WEL L. ALL THIS IS DONE WITHOUT ANY APPROVAL FROM THE REGISTRAR OF THE SOCI ETIES. WITH INDULGENCE IN SUCH KIND OF ACTIVITY BY THE APPELLAN T, IT IS REMARKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPE LLANT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. MOREOVER, IT IS A C O-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. (VIII) IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND, A SPECIFIC FINDING IS ALSO RENDERED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IS MISSING IN THE INSTAN T CASE. THOUGH THERE IS A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OUR PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY TAKING NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION: 'AS VARIOUS COURTS HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS MUST EXIST BEFORE AN ACTIVITY COULD BE B ROUGHT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY; THAT NO PERSON CAN EARN FROM HIM; THAT THERE A PROFIT MOTIVATION; AND THAT THERE IS NO SHARING OF PROFIT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FUND INVESTED WITH BANK WHICH ARE NOT MEMB ER OF ASSOCIATION WELFARE 'RIND, AND THE INTEREST HAS BEEN EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENT FOR EXAMPLE, ING MUTUAL FUND [AS SAID BY THE MD VIDE HI S STATEMENT DATED 20.12.20101. [THOUGH THE BANK FORMED THE THIR D PARTY VIS-A-VIS THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED BETWEEN CONTRIBUTOR AND RECIP IENT IS LOST IN SUCH CASE. THE OTHER INGREDIENTS OF MUTUALITY ARE ALSO F OUND TO BE MISSING AS DISCUSSED IN FURTHER PARAGRAPHS/. IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION ARE THE CONTRIBUTORS TOW ARDS SURPLUS, HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO PARTICIPATORS IN THE SURPLUSE S. THERE IS NO COMMON CONSENT OF WHATSOEVER FOR PARTICIPATORS AS T HEIR IDENTITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO SATIS FY THE TEST OF MUTUALITY AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE PAYMENTS THE NU MBER IN REFERRED AS MEMBERS MAY NOT BE THE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AS SUCH THE AOP BODY BY THE SOCIETY IS NOT COVERED BY CONCEPT OF MU TUALITY AT ALL.' (IX) THESE ARE THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH HAVE REMA INED UNSHAKEN TILL THE STAGE OF THE HIGH COURT. ONCE WE KEEP THE AFORE SAID ASPECTS IN MIND, THE CONCLUSION IS OBVIOUS, NAMELY, THE APPELL ANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEANT ONLY FOR IT S MEMBERS AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. WE ARE AFRAID SUCH A SOCIETY CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. GROUND - 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ONCE AGAIN ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE SOCIETY AS AN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE HONOURABLE COURT HAD HELD THAT INTEREST EARNED ON DEPOSIT OF IDLE AND SURPLUS FUND IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 6 BUT THE ACTUAL FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THAT TH E INTEREST IS EARNED ON THE DEPOSIT OF STATUTORY RESERVE FUND AND OTHER SPE CIFIC FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF DEPOSITS OF IDLE AND SURPLUS FUNDS. THE SOCIETY HAS TO MANDATORILY TRANSFER EVERY YEAR 25% OF ITS PROFITS TO A FUND CALLED STATUTORY RESERVE FUND AND SUCH RE SERVE FUNDS ARE TO BE MANDATORILY INVESTED AS DEPOSITS IN CO-OPERATIVE BANKS AND CANNOT BE UTILIZED BY THE SOCIETY UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. EVEN THE INTEREST EARNED ON SU CH RESERVE FUNDS HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO RESERVE FUND AND CANNOT BE USED FOR THE BUSINESS. HENCE IT IS A MANDATORY DEPOSIT OF RESERVE FUND AND NOT ANY SURPLUS OR IDLE FUNDS. THE SOCIETY HAS TAKEN UP CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING F OR ITS BUSINESS AND HAD RAISED BUILDING FUNDS AND IS BEING UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. HENCE TREATING THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE DEPOSITS AS INTEREST EARNED ON IDLE AND SURPLUS FUND IS NOT CORRECT AND THE APP ELLANT HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS IN THE COURSE OF CO-OP ERATIVE BUSINESS. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL DAT ES. ON THE FIRST DATE I.E. ON 03.09.2018, SOMEBODY APPEARED WITH A LETTER ALON G WITH A COPY OF FORM 35 IN DUPLICATE TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY T HE REGISTRY AND ALTHOUGH, THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IN THIS LETTER FROM KPMS & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.09.2018 BECAUSE NO ONE WAS PRESENT TO ARGUE THE APPEAL AND NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AUTHORIZING ANY PERSON TO ARGUE THE APPEAL . ON 24.09.2018, SOMEBODY APPEARED WITH A LETTER FROM KPMS & ASSOCIATES, CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANTS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 2 4.10.2018 ALTHOUGH EVEN ON THIS DATE, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AUTHORIZING ANY PERSON TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. ON 24.10.2018, THE BENC H DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.11.2018. ON THIS DATE A GAIN, SOMEBODY APPEARED WITH A LETTER FROM KPMS & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACC OUNTANTS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 03.12.201 8 ALTHOUGH EVEN ON THIS DATE, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AUTHORIZING ANY PERSON TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. ON 03.12.2018 ALSO, IT WAS SEEN T HAT NO AUTHORIZED PERSON APPEARED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE APP EAL WAS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF CIT (A). ITA NO. 2347(BANG)2018 7 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE APPEAL IS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 570 DAYS AND NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH DELAY. HE DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMIS SED THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMISSIBLE. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, NO ONE HAS AP PEARED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE CIT (A). HENCE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE D A T E D : 21.12.2018 /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE .