The Belgaum Taluka Industriel Co-op. Soc ., Belgaum V. Income-Tax Officer (1) (2), Belgaum

ITA 95/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 9524114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT K LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P Y VAIDYA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 95 /PNJ/2014 : (ASST. YEAR :20 0 9 - 1 0 ) THE BELGAUM TALUKA RURAL INDUSTRIAL CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, H. NO.4883/56, FULBAG GALLI , BELGAUM 590 00 2 . PAN : AA AAT14653R (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI P.Y. VAIDYA, ADV. RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI NISHANT K. LD. D.R. DATE OF HEAR ING : 15/10 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 / 10 /2014 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BELGAUM DTD. 1 9.1 1.201 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 10 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED C IT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,03,809/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THEREFORE IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5(CCV) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. 3. THE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GOVERNED BY RBI ACT OR THE BANKING REGULATION A CT 1949, WHEREAS IT IS GOVERNED BY THE KARNATAKA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND CORRESPONDING BYE LAWS. 2 ITA NO. 95 /PNJ/201 4 (ASST. YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTS DEPOSITS FROM GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN THE FACTS REVEAL THAT DEPOSITS ARE ACCEPTED O NLY FROM MEMBERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEMBERS AND TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS AS PER THE BYE LAWS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WHICH IS SPEC IFICALLY PROVIDED TO A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (VIIA) IN SECTION 2(24) OF THE ACT DOES NOT ALTER THE POSITIO N AS FAR AS DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) IS CONCERNED FOR PROVIDING DEDUCTION TO A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT TO A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY BY APPLYING AMENDMENT BY INSERTION OF SECTION 80P(4) WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO CO - OPERATIVE BANKS. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE BYE LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SPECIFICALLY PERMIT ADMISSION OF OTHER CO OPE RATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER AND HENCE IT IS NOT A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I), THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ALSO EXEMPT ON THE GROUND OF MUTUALITY. 10 . THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR MAKI NG THE DISALLOWANCE ARE WRONG, INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 51 DAYS. CONDONATION OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT WAS HEARD. SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED WIT H REASONABLE CAUSE WE CONDONE THE DELAY. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 46 , 5 2, 40 0/ - AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THEREFORE NET TAXABLE INCOME WAS SHOWN 3 ITA NO. 95 /PNJ/201 4 (ASST. YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) TO BE NIL. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 46 , 5 2, 40 0/ - . THE AO WHILE DENYING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED APPEAL BEING ITA NO.392/PNJ/2013 FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE CIT(A) ORDER DATED 19.11.2013. THIS APPEAL HAS ALREADY BE EN DISPOSED OFF BY US VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 26.2.2014. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE INSISTED ONLY THEN THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT DENY THIS FACT. THIS IS HIGHLY DISGRACEFUL ON THE PART OF NOT ONLY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE. FILING OF THE ANOTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 19.11.2013 IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THE APPEAL THEREFORE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE LD. A.R WHEN WE ASKED IF THE RELEVANT PROVISION HE RENDERED APOLOGY IN TH E OPEN COURT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADVOCATE APPEARING AND REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN GIVE CORRECT FINDING OF FACTS CONCEALING THE CORRECT FACT ON THE PART OF THE ADVOCATE OR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TOLERATED. WE THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE COURSE SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS WASTED VALUABLE TIME NOT OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE RUNNING OF WHICH THE GOVT. HAS TO INCUR A COST OF RS.30,000/ - PER DAY BUT ALSO VALUABLE TIME OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN WASTED WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVOTED FOR WORTHWHILE CASES. NOT ONLY THIS EVEN WHATEVER FEES IS PAID TO THE ADVOCATE, THE SAME IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AND TO THE EXTENT THE TAX IS IMPOSE D ON THE ASSESSEE, THIS AMOUNT IS BORNE BY THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER. WE THEREFORE, AS A DETERENT SO THAT THIS THING MAY NOT BE REPEATED IN FUTURE IMPOSE A COST OF RS.10,000/ - AND DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT IT AS 4 ITA NO. 95 /PNJ/201 4 (ASST. YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) REGULAR DEMAND BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY AND COPY OF THE CHALLAN DEPOSITING THE SAID MONEY BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 . ORDER PRONOU N CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 .10 .2014. SD/ - SD/ - (D. T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 15 .10 .2014 *A* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE CO PY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI, GOA