M/s. Sri Narasingapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Salem V. ITO, Salem

MA 115/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8948 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.P.NO.115/MDS/2012 [IN I.T.A NO.1896/MDS/2012] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SRI NARASINGAPURAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. S-6608 NARASINGAPURAM ALTUR TALUK SALEM 636 108 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II(3) SALEM [PAN AAAA 3472 C ] (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAUMYAJIT DAS GUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 07-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.1.2012 P ASSED IN I.T.A.NO. 1896/MDS/2010. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS AGITATED IN T HIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO T ADJUDICATED GROUND MP 115/12 :- 2 -: NOS.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 OF THE APPEAL, IN ITS ORDE R DATED 31.1.2012 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO. 1896/MDS/2010. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CORRECT AND TENABLE IN LAW FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCO ME IN THE LIGHT OF THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FIN DINGS RECORDED TO SUSTAIN THE REJECTION OF THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUC TION WERE WRONG, INCORRECT, UNJUSTIFIED, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SU STAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ALTE RNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID AL TERNATE CLAIM WOULD DEFEAT THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXP ECTATION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FIN DINGS ON THE INTEREST EARNED FROM JEWEL LOANS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD A DIRECT AND LIVE NEXUS WITH THE MAIN OBJECT RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN AS MUCH AS T HE METHOD OF PROVIDING SUCH FACILITIES TO THE AGRICULTURAL OPERA TIONS WOULD NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SU BMISSIONS FILED ON 16.9.2010 IN WRITING IN THE PROCEEDINGS LE ADING TO ETH PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INT ERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION ATTEMPTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS WRONG, INCORRECT, UNJUSTIFIED, E RRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. MP 115/12 :- 3 -: 8. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT WAS W RONG, INCORRECT, UNJUSTIFIED, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINAB LE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE W AS NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY INVOLVED AS ASSUMED IN AS MUCH AS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSACTIONS SECURITIZED WAS TOTALLY BRUSHED ASIDE, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT HAD LED TO THE WRO NG FINDINGS AS RECORDED IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY INVOLVED AS ASSUMED IN AS MUCH AS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSACTIONS SECURITIZED WAS TOTALLY BRUSHED ASIDE, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT HAD LED TO THE WRO NG FINDINGS AS RECORDED IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER AS UND ER: AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND FROM THE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH HAS ALSO B EEN FILED BEFORE US WITH THE APPEAL MEMO THAT, IN THE ALTERNA TIVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IF THE CLAIM FO R EXEMPTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED, THEN EXE MPTION OF THE INCOME SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. WE FIND THAT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A). BOTH THE PARTIES AG REED BEFORE US THAT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INCO ME IN QUESTION IS EXEMPT ON THE BASIS OF MUTUALITY REQUIR ES VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND FIGURES FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIF ICATION OF ALL FACTS AND THEN TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND O RDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THUS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT ITS GRIEVANCE REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND (IV)OF THE ACT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE TRIB UNAL AND THE SAME MP 115/12 :- 4 -: PRESENTS A CASE OF MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE ISS UE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ALLOWIN G PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS O BSERVED THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER AL LOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND (IV) OF THE ACT ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING BOTH THE PARTIES A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, TO THE ABOVE EXTENT OUR ORDER DATED 31.1.2012 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.1896/MDS/2010 ST ANDS MODIFIED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 RD : COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR