The Ahmedabad Co.Op. Fruits and Vegetable Growers, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 662/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 66220514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Section: 54; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 662 /AHD/ 20 1 5 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 11 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH , SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO. 662 / AHD / 2 0 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 AHMEDABAD CO - OP. FRUITS & VEGETABLE GROWERS, ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT SARDAR PATEL MARKET, OUTSIDE JAM ALPAUR GATE, AHMEDABAD . [PAN AA AJT 0298 H ] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX - CPC, .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT BANGALORE . APPEARANCES BY: ANIL R. SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT B.L. SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARIN G : SEPTEMBER 1 ST , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 12 TH , 2015 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE A SSESS EE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13 TH JANUARY, 2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE COMM. O F INCOME - TAX (A) - 10, AHMEDABAD ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CITA) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN PAS S ING OR D ER OF THE FOLLOWING AMONGST THE OTHER GROUNDS : 1. THE CITA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000/ - U/S.80P(C)(II) AND RS.1,83,450/ - U/S. 80P(2)(D) UNDER THE CONTENTION THAT BECAUSE THE 4 TH ALPHABET OF PAN IS J, THE APPELLANT IS NOT A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTIONS. ITA NO . 662 /AHD/ 20 1 5 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 11 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS REGISTERED A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SINCE 1942 AND EVER SINCE , DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IS ALLOWED BY THE AO HIMSELF BY ACC EPTING THE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ALSO BY CITA IN APPELLANT S OWN CASE IN A.Y. 01 - 02 WHICH HAS REACHED A STAGE OF FINALITY, THE CITA OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000/ - AND RS.1,83,450/ - WITHOUT SUO - MOTO CHANGING T HE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT . 3. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, MERELY BECAUSE 4 TH ALPH A BET OF THE PN IS J WHICH REPRESENTS ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP) APPELLANT DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND SINCE PAN IS ALLOTTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT OVER W HICH THE APPELLNT DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL, 4 TH ALPHABET OF THE PAN IS WRONGLY TREATED AS APPELLANT S STATUS AS AJP AND NOT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. 4. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE APPELLANT FURTHER STATE THAT EV EN IF 4 TH ALPHABET OF PAN IS J WHICH REPRESENTS AJP, THE APPELLANT BEING A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CAN BE REGARDED AS AJP BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED REGISTRATION SINCE 1942 UNDER AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY VIZ. SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT AND THEREFORE A LSO, THE CITA OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED APPELLANT AS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000/ - AND RS.1,83,450/ - . IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT RELIEF CLAIMED ABOVE BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT A BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 2. THE SH ORT ISSUE WE AR E THUS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NOT GR A NTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC T ION 80P, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BECAUSE PAN ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE REFLE CTS OTHERWISE. THE RELATED FACT, AS NECESSARY FOR MY ADJUDICATION , ARE CLEARLY DISCERNABLE FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD . CI T (A): THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. HENCE, IT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000 / - BEING BASIC EXEMPTION LIMI T U/S 80P OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE RS.1,83,450/ - U/S 80P OF THE ACT B E ING INTEREST RECEIVED FROM O T HER COOP ERATIVE SOCIETIES. BUT BOTH OF THESE DEDUCTIONS WERE DENIED AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF RETUR N UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED BY THE AC IT, CPC, BANGALORE. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINS T THIS ORDER OF THE CPC, BANGALORE. IN THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2013 OF THE CPC, BANG ALORE REJECTING APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR RECTIFICATION, IT IS MENTIONED A S FOLLOWS : - ITA NO . 662 /AHD/ 20 1 5 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 11 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 4 DEDUCTION U/S 80P IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR STATUS OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ON GOING THROUGH RECORDS IT IS OBSERVED THAT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) OF T HE APPLICANT IS AAAJT0298H. FOURTH ALPHABET IN PAN INDICATES STATUS OF THE APPELLANT. FOURTH A LPHABET IN PAN OF THE APPELLANT IS J . ALPHABET J S T ANDS FOR STATUS ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON . THIS SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A COOPERATIVE SOCIE TY. HENCE IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT WHICH IS MEANT FOR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. THUS, THE CPC, BANGALORE HAS RIGHTLY NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF DISCUSSION ABOVE , I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE CPC, BANGALORE REJECTING APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR RECTIFICATION. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. I HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE POSITION. 4. I FIND THAT THE ONLY BASIS FOR DECLINING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P IS THAT PAN NUMBER ALLOCATED TO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REFL ECT THE ASSESSEE S STATUS AS C O - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THAT IS SOMETHING WHOLLY EXTRANEOUS FOR GRANTING DEDUCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE S STATUS AS C O - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS OTHERWISE NOT IN DISPUTE NOR IS IT S ENTITLEMENT TO DEDUCT UNDER SECTION 80P. THE PROGRAMMING ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ALLOTMENT OF PANS OR PROCE SSING OF RETURNS CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE BASIS FOR DE CLINING DEDUCTIONS ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESS EE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT ADMISSIBLE D ED UCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80P AS ADMISSIBLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 12 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015 PBN/* ITA NO . 662 /AHD/ 20 1 5 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 11 - 12 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GU ARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD