Sumitra Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur V. Income-Tax Officer ,

ITA 2476/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5525 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO. 2476/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SUMITRA GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, MAHAVIR PATH, AKLUJ, TALUKA MALSHIRAS, DISTRICT- SOLAPUR-413 101 PAN : AAAAS1014K .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), PANDHARPUR. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO REVENUE BY : SHRI S. DAS / DATE OF HEARING : 24.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-7, PUNE DATED 11.07.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/ S.80P[2][A][I] OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST IN COME OF RS.71,56,584.00 EARNED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS KEPT BY IT WITH NATIONALIZED BANKS AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN TAXING THE SAID INCO ME U/S.56 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961.THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEING PATENTLY ILLE GAL, BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME M AY PLEASE BE DELETED 2 ITA NO.2476 /PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09 AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT THE AFORESAID INTERE ST INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S.80P[2][A][I] OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/ S.80P[2][A][I] OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND IN COME AND INTEREST ON NRF AMOUNTING TO RS.3,028.00. THE AFORESAID ADDITIO N BEING PATENTLY ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THA T THE AFORESAID INTEREST INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S.80P[2][A][I] OF THE I .T. ACT 1961. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY, ALTER, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.2. WE, THEREFORE, TAKING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD, DISMISS GROUND NO.2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED . 3. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICAT ION. 4. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.1, IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF DEDU CTION U/S.80[2][A][I] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.71,56,5 84.00 EARNED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS KEPT BY IT WITH NATIONALIZED BANKS. THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE NECES SARY REGISTRATION AND LICENSE HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS E-FILED RETURN O F INCOME ON 24.08.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AND THE TOTAL INCO ME WAS ASSESSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT TO RS.54,12,970/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 IS ALREADY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3 ITA NO.2476 /PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09 ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN ITA NO.589/PUN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SURESHDADA JAIN NAGRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA, THEREIN, IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE ISSUE IS AS UNDER: 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE PROJECTED BY THE REVENUE IN I TS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ALLOWING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT O F INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4.WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF SHIVNERI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ANOTHER ORDER OF THE PUNE BENC H DATED 19-08-2015 IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI P AT SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. ITO (ITA NO.604/PN/2014) (TO WHICH ONE OF US, NAMELY, THE LD. JM IS PARTY) IN WHICH SIMILAR DEDUCTION HAS BEE N ALLOWED. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAXMI NAR AYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED THE CONT RARY VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TU MKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ITO (2015) 230 TAXMANN 309 (KAR.) ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P ON INTEREST INCOME AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT SOC IETY LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 110 DTR 89 (DELHI) NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U /S.80P ON INTEREST INCOME, EARNED FROM BANKS UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANC ES. BOTH THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION T HE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. 322 ITR 283 (SC). THERE BEING NO DIRECT JUDGMENT FROM THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE POINT, THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NA GARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT (SUPRA) PREFERRED TO GO WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. ( SUPRA). IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR BEING ANY CHANGE IN THE LEGAL POSI TION PREVAILING ON THIS ISSUE AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE PUNE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARY ADIT (SUPRA) AND HOST OF OTHER ORDERS REITERATING THE SIMILAR VIEW, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80P ON THE INTEREST INCOME RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) AND ALLOW GROUND NO.1 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO.2476 /PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09 6. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- R.S.SYAL PARTH A SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 25 TH JANUARY, 2019. SB !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-7, PUNE. 4. THE CIT-6, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 5 ITA NO.2476 /PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2 4 .01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25 .01 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER