Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7951 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-12-2017
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
27-07-2017
Judgement Text
- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 5069/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER 29(1)(1), R. NO. 101, 1 ST FLOOR, C - 10, 1 ST FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400 051 / VS. M/S. ASHIRWAD CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED B - 07, GROUND FLOOR, UDYOG KSHETRA, MULUND GORE GAON LINK ROAD, MU LUND (W), MU MBAI - 400 080 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAA 9720 A ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHU PENDRA SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12. 2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 31.5.2017, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2 ITA NO. 5069/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. ASHIRWAD CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,72,710/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDIN G CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF RS.43,72,710/ - ON THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON BANK DEPOSITS, AS THE SAME IS HELD TO BE OUT OF PURVIEW OF SECTION 80P(2)(IA). HE HELD THAT THESE ARE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TAXABLE U/S. 56. FURTHERMORE, HE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4), HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. 4. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ASST. CIT [2015] 58 TAXMANN.COM 113 (BOM). THE SAME READ AS UNDER : (HEADNOTES ONLY) SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 DEDUCTIONS INCOME FROM COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PRIMARY CO - OPERATI VE BANK) ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 ASSESSEE, A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED UNDER 3 ITA NO. 5069/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. ASHIRWAD CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT IT WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I), WHICH W AS DISALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK, THEREFORE, HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4), WHICH EXCLUDED BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P - IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS PROVIDING CREDIT MAINLY TO ITS MEMBERS AND ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH NON - MEMBERS WERE INSIGNIFICANT MOREOVER, IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT BYE LAWS OF SOCIETY DID NOT ALLOW ANY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY TO BECOME ITS MEMBER WHETHER ON FACTS, ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK RATHER IT WAS A CO - OPERATIV E SOCIETY AND, THEREFORE, ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED. HELD. 7. FURTHER , I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE NOW IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10245 OF 2017 IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZ EN CO - OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD. VS. ACIT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2017. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THIS CASE HAS EXPOUNDED THAT IF ONE HAS TO GO BY THE DEFINITION OF CO - OPERATIVE BANK, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET COVERED THEREBY. THAT IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE BUSINESS OF A CO - OPERATIVE BANK, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A LICENSE FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHICH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT POSSESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BEFORE ME ALSO THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT LICENSED FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO ACT AS CO - OPERATIVE BANK. HENCE, AS PER THE RATIO EMANATING FROM THE AFORE - SAID HONBLE APEX COURT JUDGMENT , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFOR ESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I). 4 ITA NO. 5069/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. ASHIRWAD CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED 9. IN THE RESULT, THE R EVENUE S APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.12.2017 SD/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 13.12.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI
