ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Bangalore Credit Co-Opeative Society Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 973/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5523 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G KAMALADHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S RANGANATH
• Keywords: Question of law; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE S HRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO. 973 /BANG/20 16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 09) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. VS. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.723/1, (NEW NO.37/1), 10 TH MAIN ROAD, 36 TH CROSS, 4 TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011 . .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. KAMALADHAR, STANDING COUNSEL. R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RANGANATH, FCA. DATE OF H EARING : 13.04.2017. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 18 .04 .201 7 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J .M . : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 08.03.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7 , BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2 IT A NO. 973 /BANG/201 6 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80P O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AS WELL AS LEARNED A.R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 VIDE ORDER 3 IT A NO. 973 /BANG/201 6 DT.27.6.2014 IN ITA NO.598 OF 2013. FURTHER THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SA HAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT (369 ITR 86) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD IN PARAS 8 & 9 AS UNDER : - 8. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY BA NKING LICENCE. THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CARRY ON ANY BANKING BUSINESS, THE INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID FACTS, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT IT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IN FACT, THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY ALSO IN HIS ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WHICH PROVIDES CREDIT FACILITIES. SECTION 80P OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE DEDUCTION OF INCOME OF A SOCIETY. IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE BEING A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNTS OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY OF OTHER ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P SHALL BE DEDU CTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE. IT IS A BENEFIT GIVEN TO THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. SECTION 80P(4) WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2007, EXCLUDING THE SAI D BENEFIT TO A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THE SAID PROVISION READS AS UNDER : '(4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.... ( A ) 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' AND 'PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY' SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (10 OF 1949) ; ( B ) 'PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK' MEANS A SOCIETY HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A TALUK AND THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FOR LONG - TERM CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.' THEREFORE, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLE AR. IF A CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS, THEN THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS CANNOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INCOME IS LIABLE FOR TAX. A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS DEFINED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION 4 IT A NO. 973 /BANG/201 6 ACT INCLUDES THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT WANT TO DENY THE SAID BENEFITS TO A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THEY DID NOT WANT TO EXTEND THE SAID BENEFIT TO A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS, I.E., THE PURPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK CARRYING ON EXCLUSIVELY BANKING BUSINESS AND AS IT DOES NOT POSSESS A LICENCE FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO CARRY ON BUSINESS, IT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH ALSO CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY TO ITS M EMBERS WHICH IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I), I.E., CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FOR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE OBJECT OF THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT IS NOT TO EXCLUDE THE BENEFIT EXTENDED UNDER SECTION 80P(1) TO SUCH SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE SAID ORDER WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO INVOKE THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 IS THAT THE TWIN CONDITIONS SHOULD B E SATISFIED. THE ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 9. THIS COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DIGITAL GLOBAL SOFT LTD. [2013] 354 ITR 489/[2011] 203 TAXMAN 98/15 TAXMANN.COM 78 (KAR.) WHERE PARAGRAPH 18, IT HAS HELD AS UNDER (PAGE 500) : 'AS IS CLEAR FROM THE WORDING IN SECTION 263, THE COMMISSIONE R GETS THE JURISDICTION TO REVISE ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE CANNOT EXERC ISE THE POWER OF REVISION SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS ERRONEOUS. HE GETS JURISDICTION ONLY IF SUCH ERRONEOUS ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE' MEANS, LAWFUL REVENUE DUE TO THE STATE HAS NOT BEEN REALIZED OR CANNOT BE REALISED. IN OTHER WORDS, BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IF THE LAWFUL REVENUE TO THE STATE HAS NOT BEEN REALISED OR CANNOT BE REALISED, AS THE SAID ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND ALSO ERRONEOU S, HE GETS JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. THEREFORE, FOR ATTRACTING SECTION 263, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS (A) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS, AND (B) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT, I.E., IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE, RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE SATISFACTION OF BOTH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SEC TION IS THE SINE QUA NON FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263.' IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY EXTEND ING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IS CORRECT. THERE IS NO ERROR. WHEN THERE IS NO ERROR, THE QUESTION OF ORDER BEING PREJUDICIAL WOULD NOT ARISE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL AND SET A SIDE THE ORDER. 5 IT A NO. 973 /BANG/201 6 THEREFORE, THE SAID ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 5 . THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING A VIEW BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMNET OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMNET OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESUL T, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 201 7 . SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 18 .04.2017. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . C.I.T. 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 . GUARD FILE. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.