ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI V. NAVSANDESH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

ITA 3954/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7754 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3954/M/2016 (AY 2012 - 2013 ) ITO - 21(2)(4), MUMBAI. / VS. M/S. NAVSANDESH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, 13/2 AND 4, N.M. JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 13. ./ PAN : AADFN6130H ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. IYER / DATE OF HEARING : 23 .03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .03.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 10.06.2016 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 33, MUMBAI DATED 28.3.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN TOTO AND THEY RELATE TO THE ALLOWABLILITY OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN RECEIPTS. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT IS A SOCIETY AND NOT A BANK. HOWEVER, AO TREATED THE SAME AS A BANK AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 80P(4) OF THE ACT. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN GENERAL AND THE CONTENTS OF PARA 24 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN PARTICULAR, I FIND, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DEPOSITS WITH THE OTHER BANKS IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEES BANKING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE SAME, I AM OF THE OPINION, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND RE ASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 T H MARCH, 2017. S D / - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 29.03.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI