The Gandevi Peoplpes Co.Op.Bamk Ltd., Navsari V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Navsari

ITA 2660/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1905 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGRAWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 3.12.2009: DRAFTED ON:3.12.20 09 ITA NOS.2660/AHD/2009, 2661/AHD/2009, 2662/AHD/2009, 2663/AHD/2009, 2664/AHD/2009, 2665/AHD/2009, 2666/AHD/2009, 2667/AHD/2009, 2668/AHD/2009, 2669/AHD/2009, 2670/AHD/2009, 2671/AHD/2009, ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1988-89, 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94, 94-95, 95-96, 96-97, 97-98, 98-99, 99-2000, THE GANDEVI PEOPLES CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD. STANDERTON HOUSE, MAIN BAZAR, GANDEVI, DIST. NAVSARI. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NAVSARI PAN/GIR NO. : AABFT 4216 E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: RAJEEV AGRAWAL CIT. D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH :- THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-III, SURAT, DATED 20.03.2002 IN APPEAL NOS. CAS- III/77/2000-01, CAS-III/121/2000-01, CAS-III/120/20 00-01, CAS- III/164/2000-01, CAS-III/76/2000-01, CAS-III/78/200 0-01, CAS- III/79/2000-01, CAS-III/80/2000-01, CAS-III/81/2000 -01, CAS-III/162 & 163/2000-01, CAS-III/82/2000-01, CAS-I AND ORDER D ATED 29.07.2002 IN APPEAL NO.CAS/VLS/22/02.03 EXCEPT FOR CHANGE IN FIG URE BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO .2660 TO 2671/AHD/2009 THE GANDEVI PEOPLES CO.OPE.BANK LTD. ASST.YEAR -88-89 TO 99-2000 - 2 - 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO L AW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITO, WARD 1(1), NAVSARI, DENYING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.7,13,901/ - IN AGGREGATE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) AND 8 0P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) COULD HAVE OBSERVED AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)( A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR RS.4,83,412/- FOR THE INCOME EARNED FRO M INVESTMENTS MADE IN GOVERNMENT/TRUSTEE SECURITIES PURSUANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 71 OF THE GUJARA T CO- OPERATIVES ACT, 1961 AND ALSO AS PER THE RELEVANT P ROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1949 AND ALSO DIREC TED THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(D) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,30,489/- FOR THE INCOME E ARNED FROM INVESTMENTS WITH OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) COULD HAVE OBSERVED THA T THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UN DER SECIOTN 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT BEING THE INCOME DE RIVED FROM BUSINESS OF BANKING, THE SUPREME COURT HAS RE SOLVED THE CONTROVERSY BY ITS ORDER DATED 22 ND AUGUST, 2001 & 30 TH AUGUST, 2001 IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. KARNATAKA STAT E CO- OPERATIVE APEX BANK AND MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. ITO ANDHELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM INVESTMENS WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT/TRUSTEE SECURITIES, ETC. IS ENTITELED TO DEDUCTION 80P(2)(A )(I) OF THE ACT BEING FORMING PART OF THE VARIOUS BANKING ACTIV ITIES AS PERMITTED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1941 A ND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO AN D LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO OBSERV E THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT FOR THE INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF INTEREST AND/OR DIVIDEN D FROM THE INVESTMENTS IN OTHER CO. OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, I S TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM THAT OF DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE DENIA L TO GRANT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT FOR RS.2,30,489/- IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY, PRESSURE AND NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO .2660 TO 2671/AHD/2009 THE GANDEVI PEOPLES CO.OPE.BANK LTD. ASST.YEAR -88-89 TO 99-2000 - 3 - 5. YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER RESERVES HER RIGHTS TO AD D, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF AN APPEAL. 2. THE APPEALS FILED THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.2660 /AHD/2009, 2661/AHD/2009,2662/AHD/2009,2663/AHD/2009,2664/AHD/ 2009,2665/AHD /2009, 2666/AHD/2009, 2667/AHD/2009, 2668/AHD/2009, 2670/AHD/2009, ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 2684 DAYS AND THE APPEA L IN ITA NOS. 2669/AHD/2009, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 3085 DAYS AND APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2671/AHD/2009 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 2547 D AYS. NO CONDONATION PETITION WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE APPEAL. THE REGIST RY HAS ISSUED A DEFECT MEMO ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE DATED 25 .09.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THAT THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE NO ACCOMPANIED WITH A CONDONATION PETITION EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. TODAY I.E. ON 3.12.2009, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI MITISH S. MODI HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WITHOUT THE CONDONATION PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEALS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEAL AFTER A CONSIDERABLE DELAY, WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES IN THE COURT ON 03/12/2009. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/12/2009 PREPARED AND COMPARED BY : PARAS ITA NO .2660 TO 2671/AHD/2009 THE GANDEVI PEOPLES CO.OPE.BANK LTD. ASST.YEAR -88-89 TO 99-2000 - 4 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I AND III, SURAT. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD