MP No.45/Bang/2024 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.45/Bang/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1171/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society 1718, 3 rd Block, 9 th Main Road Jayanagar Bangalore 560 011 PAN NO : AAALT0604R Vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Sreenivasa Karthik Devara, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This MP filed by the assessee seeking rectification order of Tribunal in ITA No.1511/Bang/2023 dated 23.7.2024. The first grievance of the MP in this appeal is that the assessee raised ground in this appeal in ground No.2 as follows: “2. The ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the assessment order passed on the appellant in the status of local authority without appreciating that the appellant is a co-operative society and therefore, the order of assessment passed in the wrong status ought to have been cancelled.” 2. According to the assessee’s counsel, there was failure on the part of Tribunal to adjudicate the above ground which constitute a mistake apparent on record warranting the rectification. He prayed that the said ground may be adjudicated. MP No.45/Bang/2024 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the time of arguing original appeal on 23.7.2024, ld. A.R. has not put any argument on this count. As such it was not considered. Now he wants to reargue the ground, which cannot be permitted at this stage. Even otherwise, there was correct mentioning of PAN in assessment orders and mentioning the status as local authority is a typographical error which should be condoned and assessment order cannot be said to be bad in law. Accordingly, this plea of the assessee is rejected. 4. The assessee in other grounds claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the order of Tribunal in the case of Kavradi Co-operative agricultural bank, Udupi in ITA No.93/Bang/24 dated 10.6.2024 relied by the ld. A.R. and also considered the order of the Tribunal in the case of Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha in ITA No.452/Bang/2024 dated 1.5.2024. After this it also taken note of the order of Tribunal in the case of Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.947/Bang/2024 dated 3.7.2024 relied by the ld. D.R. and observed as under in para 3.4 of its order: “3.4 As seen from the above order of the Tribunal, there is no dispute regarding grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd..Vs. CIT and another (123 taxman.com 161), if the nominal and associated members were not entitled for profit earned by the assessee and to grant proportionate deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Similarly, when interest income received from investment from banks if it is not attributable to the main business of the assessee providing credit facilities to its members, there was no question of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on that income. In view of the above, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. AO on similar directions to decide afresh.” 5. According to the ld. A.R., certain observations in this appeal are contrary in nature wherein observed that assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction which created confusion in the mind of ld. MP No.45/Bang/2024 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 AO, as such ld. A.R. made a plea that proper amendment be made in this appeal. 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, Tribunal considered all the judgements cited by the parties and relied on the findings in para 3.4. There was certain errors crept in para 3.4, as such we inclined to correct the same and para 3.4 is amended and thereafter it is to be read as follows: “3.4 As seen from the above orders of the Tribunal, there is no dispute regarding grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and also granting of expenditure incurred u/s 57 of the Act, if the interest is earned by assessee from the banks is considered as “Income from other sources”. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of ld. AO to recompute deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and also compute the income of the assessee, if the interest earned from the bank from other sources and to grant deduction u/s 57 of the Act as discussed in order of the Tribunal in the case of Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha cited (supra).” 7.1 However, no change in final result in ITA No.1171/Ban/2023 dated 23.7.2024. 8. In the result, MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9 th Aug, 2024 Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 9 th Aug, 2024. VG/SPS MP No.45/Bang/2024 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.