M/s Samrudha Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

ITA 926/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5884 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S PALANI
• Section: 143(3); 80P; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 926 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 14 M/S. SAMRUDHA SOUHARDHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., NO. 518/A, 3 RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI 1 ST STAGE, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 050. PAN: ABDFS9268A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (2) (4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. PALANI, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 0 4 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 0 4 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THISAPPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OFLD. CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE DATED 16.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N DENYING THE DEDUCTION BY SAYING 'SECTION 80P (4) IS TAKING AWAY , EFFECTIVELY THE PRIVILEGE GIVEN U/S 80P (2) (A) (I) FOR OTHER CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES AND BANKS'. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISINTERPRETED THE SECTION 80P (4) WHERE IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 80P DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY COOPERATIVE BANK. WE ARE REGISTERED UN DER THE SOCIETIES ACT AND NOT GOVERNED BY THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT A LLOWING DEDUCTION ITA NO.926/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 U/S 80P(1)(A) DESPITE SPECIFIC PLEA MADE BY THE APP ELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZEN CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO 10245 OF 2017 , WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT ANY INCOME THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DE NIED THE BENEFIT OF 80P(2)(A)(I) ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT MOSTLY COLLECTE D DEPOSITS FROM THE NOMINAL MEMBERS AND LENT LOAN TO NOMINAL MEMBERS. T HE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEANT ONL Y FOR ITS MEMBERS AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS'. IN OUR CASE, APPELLANT IS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND PROVIDING LOANS ONLY TO M EMBERS. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HOLD G OOD IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SRI BILURE GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, QUOTIN G THAT THE CASE HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY AS IT IS PENDING BEFORE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT. DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS BINDING IRRESPECTIVE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE GROUNDS AND OTHER GROUNDS WHI CH MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) BE QUASHED AND RELIEF SOUGHT BE GRANTED. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.04.2018 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEES ADDRESS PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 AND HENCE, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PRESUMED. IN SPITE OF THIS, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 12.0 4.2018 AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE A SSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOTED THAT ALONG WITH THE NOTICE FOR HEARING, DEFEC T MEMO WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER WHICH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT T HERE ARE SEVERAL DEFECTS BEING A. APPEAL FEE NOT FILED IN MINOR HEAD 300 B. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT LEGIBLE C. FORM 35 NOT FILED IN DUPLICATE 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVED THESE DEFECTS ALSO. UNDER THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.926/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH APRIL, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.