Mallikarjune Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited., Belgaum V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani., Nipani

MA 33/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4584 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GURUNATHAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 3 3/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 314 /PN J /201 3 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 10 - 1 1 ) MALLIKARJUN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD., OPP. POST OFFICE, BENADI, TAL : CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM. VS. ITO, WARD - 1 , NIPANI . PAN NO. AABAS 3055 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. GURUNATHAN A DV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.N. SIDDAPPAJI - DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 / 0 7 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 / 0 7 /201 6 . O R D E R PER NARENDRA S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20/03/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 314 /PNJ/201 3 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) FOR 10,06,060/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 M.ANO. 33 /PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 314 /P NJ /201 3 ) 4 . THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IT WAS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS OF MONEY FROM MEMBERS AS WELL AS NON - MEMBERS. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 13/02/2013 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: - WE HAVE ACCEPTED DEPOSITS FROM ALL TYPES OF MEMBERS, MEMBERS INCLUDE REGULAR MEMBERS, ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AND EVEN FROM NON - MEMBERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC ALSO. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS , SO ACCEPTED WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR LENDING OR INVESTMENT . THEREFORE, A SSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AS IT WAS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM PERSONS , WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI BILULRU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT IN ITA NO. 5006/2013 , DATED 05/02/2014 RELATES TO AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE R E VISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING HIS P OWER UNDER SECTION 263 WITHOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL FACT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING CO - OPERATIVE BANK , T HEREFORE, THE DECISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI BILULRU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT (SUPRA) , ALTHOUGH WAS CONSIDERING THE ORD E R PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, BUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE WERE ALSO CONSIDERED AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIB UNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THE ORDER PERTAIN E D TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 263 AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THUS, FIND 3 M.ANO. 33 /PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 314 /P NJ /201 3 ) THAT NO APPARENT OR PATENT ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE . IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 254(2), ONLY A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD WHICH IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASON OF THE POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLE TWO OPINION S CAN BE CONSIDERED. AS NO OBVIOUS AND PATENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20/03/2015 COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESS E E, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY , THE 2 9 TH DAY OF JULY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 9 TH JU LY , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI