The Ramanthali Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Payyannur V. The ITO, Calicut

ITA 584/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8632 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUAMR
• Keywords: Question of law; Competent authority

Judgement Text

ITA NO S 584 TO 586/C/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPEL L A TE T R IBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI B P JAIN , A M & G EORGE GEORGE.K , J M ITA NO S . 584 TO 586/COCH/2014 (ASST YEAR S 2007 - 08, 08 - 09 & 2010 - 11 ) THE RAMANATHALI SERVICE COOPERATIVE L BANK LTD KANNUR 670 601 PAN NO.AAAJR0 130C VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 KANNUR ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION REJECTED REVENUE BY SH K P GOPAKUAMR SR DR DATE OF HEARING 23 RD MAY 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 RD MAY 2016 OR D ER PER B P JAIN, AM : THESE APPEALS, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPT 2014 OF THE CIT(A), KOZHIKODE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 & 2010 - 11. 2 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HAD FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION, WHICH IS REJECTED, SINCE WE FIND THAT PRIMA FACIE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD & OTHERS IN ITA NO.212 OF 2013 ITA NO S 584 TO 586/C/2014 2 (JUDGMENT DATED 15 TH FEBRUARY 2016). HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPEALS EXPARTE, AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. 3 THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS FOR OUR CO NSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE ACT. 4 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY REGISTERED UND ER THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING AGRICULTURAL CREDIT TO ITS MEMBERS. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P (2) WAS DENIED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF B ANKING AND IN VIEW OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE ACT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 5 THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE RECENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD & OTHERS IN ITA NO.212 OF 2013 ( JUDGMENT DATED 15 TH FEBRUARY 2016) HA S HELD THAT THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL ITA NO S 584 TO 586/C/2014 3 CREDIT SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969 IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: A) WHETHE R ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN LAW IN DECIDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE REGARDING ENTITLEMENT FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY AGRI CULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY? 6 .1 IN CONSIDERING THE ABOVE QUESTION OF LAW, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 15. APPELLANTS IN THESE DIFFERENT APPEALS ARE INDISPUTABLY SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 19 69, FOR SORT, KCS ACT AND THE BYE - LAWS OF EACH OF THEM, AS MADE AVAILABLE TO THIS COURT AS PART OF THE PAPER BOOKS, CLEARLY SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT. THE PARLIAMENT, HAVING DEFINED THE TERM 'CO - OPERATI VE SOCIETY' FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BR ACT WI TH REFERENCE TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE REGISTRATION OF A SOCIETY U N DER ANY STATE LAW RELATING TO CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR THE TIME BEING; IT CANNOT B UT BE TAKEN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SOCIETIES SO REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE LAW AND ITS OBJECTS HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SUCH STATE LAW. THIS, WE VISUALISE AS DUE RECIPROCATIVE LEGISLATIVE EXE RCISE BY THE PARLIAMENT RECOGN I SING THE PREDOMINANCE OF DECISIONS RENDERED UNDER THE RELEVANT STATE LAW. IN TH I S VIEW OF THE MATTER, ALL THE APPELLANTS HAV I NG BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CRED I T SOC I ET I ES B Y THE COMPETENT AUTHOR I TY UNDE R TH E KC S ACT , I T HAS NECESSAR IL Y TO BE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF SUCH SOCIETIES IS TO UNDERTAKE AGR I CULTURAL CREDIT ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE LOANS AND ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES , THE RATE ' OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES TO BE AT THE RATE FIXED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER THE KCS ACT AND HAV I NG I TS AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT OR A MUNICIPALITY. THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEFINITION CLAUSE IN SECTION 2(OAA) OF THE KCS ACT. THE AUTHORITIES UND ER THE IT ACT CANNOT PROBE INTO ANY ISSUE OR SUCH MATTER RELATING TO SUCH APPLICANTS. 16. THE POSITION OF 1 AW BEING AS ABOVE WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE APPELLANTS HAD SHOWN TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THEY ARE PRIMARY AGR ICULTURA L CREDIT SOCIETIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (CCIV) OF SECTION 5 OF THE BR ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL ITA NO S 584 TO 586/C/2014 4 BUSINESS OF EACH OF THE APPELLANTS. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE MATERIALS ON RECORD THAT THE BYE - LAWS OF EACH OF THE APPELLANTS DO . NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS MEMBER, EXCEPT MAY BE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISO TO SUB - CLAUSE 2 OF SECTION 5(CCIV) OF THE BR ACT. THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE IMPEACHED IN THESE APPEALS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY FINDING OF FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BYE - 1AWS OF ANY OF THE APPELLANT OR ITS CLASS I FICATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KCS ACT LS ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE STATED HEREIN ABOVE. FOR THIS REASON, IT CANNOT BUT BE HELD THAT THE AP PELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT BY VIRTUE OF SUB - SECTION 4 OF THAT SECT; ON. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPEALS SUCCEED. 17. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, WE ANSWER SUBSTANTIA 1 QUESTION 'A' IN FA VOUR OF THE APPELLANTS AND HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN DECIDING THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ENTITLEMENT OF EXEMPT I ON UNDER SECTION 80P AGAINST THE APPELLANTS. WE HOLD THAT THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES, REGISTERED AS SUCH UNDER THE KCS ACT; AND CLASSIFIED SO, UNDER THAT ACT, INCLUDING THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTION. 6 .2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD & OTHERS (SUPRA). HOWEVER, SINCE THE CERTIF ICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND THE BYE - LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT PLACED ON RECORD, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE AO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THE A O SHALL DISPOSE OFF THE MAT TER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO S 584 TO 586/C/2014 5 7 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF MAY 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ( B P JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 23 RD , M AY 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT , 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN