M/s The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Soiety Ltd, Quepem V. National e-Assessment Centre , Delhi

ITA 48/PAN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5541 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SHRIKANTH
• Section: 14A; 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.48 & 50/PAN./2024 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Cindio Apartments, Quepem, GOA – 403 705 PAN AABAT3439L vs. The Addl./Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Tata Krishna For Revenue : Shri N Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2018-2019 & 2020-2021, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”) Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059196602(1) & 1059329980(1) , dated 29.12.203 and dated 03.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act”); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.48/PAN./2024 raises pleads the following effective substantive grounds : 2 ITA.Nos.48 & 50/PAN./2024 1. “The Appellant is a Co-operative society registered under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. 2. For the impugned Assessment Year 2018-19, the Appellant filed the original return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring Rs.13,77,100/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice under section 143 (2) of the IT Act, dated 22.09.2019. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant furnished all the details called for by the Learned Assessing Officer, NeAC. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer, NeAC, passed the Assessment Order under section 143(3), dated 10.03.2021 by making the following adjustments: (1) Disallowed deduction of Rs.8,75,46,780/- claimed under section 80P holding that the Appellant is a co- operative bank; (2) Disallowed Rs.51,433/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D; (3) Disallowed Rs.5,90,000/- under section 40A(7);” 3. Suffice to say, the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grounds challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action assessing it as a cooperative bank than a cooperative society; for the purpose of claiming sec.80P deduction. A perusal of the assessee’s pleadings as 3 ITA.Nos.48 & 50/PAN./2024 well as it’s detailed paper book running into 299 pages makes it clear that this is a recurring issue between the parties wherein it has stands treated as a ‘cooperative society’ eligible for the impugned deduction(s). This is indeed coupled with the fact that hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., vs., CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) has settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that it is the concerned taxpayer’s status under the State Cooperative Law; whether a cooperative society/bank which forms the decisive factor for the purpose of raising sec.80P deduction claim. The assessee all along been registered and treated as a cooperative society only. Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned disallowance on the very issue. 4. Next comes the assessee’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim on merits representing it’s interest income derived from investments made in scheduled/other banks, which again has attained finality going by the assessee’s averments in it’s third substantive ground. Learned DR could hardly draw any distinction of the relevant facts in all these assessment years. Faced with this situation, we find no reason to uphold the learned lower authorities action. The assessee succeeds in it’s sec.80P deduction claim of Rs.1,04,14,652/-. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in consequential 4 ITA.Nos.48 & 50/PAN./2024 proceedings before the Assessing Officer in very terms. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in it’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.48/PAN./2024. 5. Same order to follow in the assessee’s latter appeal ITA.No.50/PAN./2024 raising identical claim of sec.80P deduction on merits. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings therein stand rendered academic. 6. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.48 & 50/ PAN./2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 29 th July, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Panaji concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, Panaji-Bench, Panaji. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.