Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Belagavi V. The Adarsh Co-op. Credit Society Limited., Belagavi

MA 6/PAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward \\u2013 1 (2), Bagalkot as the applicant and The Adarsh Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. as the respondent. The Revenue filed three miscellaneous applications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2022, which had allowed the assessee's appeals and treated it eligible for section 80P deduction. The Revenue's primary contention was that the assessee society had derived income from non-members beyond the permissible limit, which should disqualify it from the deduction. However, the Tribunal referenced several precedents and found that the issue had been adequately addressed in the earlier proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136851 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.5, 6 & 7/PAN./2023 Arising out of ITA.Nos.26, 27 & 28/PAN./2019 Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (2), Bagalkot vs. The Adarsh Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., A-p : Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist. Belgaum - 591 252 PAN AAAAS5616H (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth For Assessee : Shri Pramod Y Vaidya Date of Hearing : 11.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These Revenue’s three miscellaneous applications filed u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") seeks to recall/recall the tribunal’s common order dated 30.08.2022 allowing the assessee’s corresponding main appeals ITA.Nos.26, 27 & 28/PAN./2019 thereby treating it eligible for sec.80P deduction. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s identical following substantive grounds pleaded in these miscellaneous applications reading as under : 2 MA.Nos.5, 6, & 7/PAN./2023 3 MA.Nos.5, 6, & 7/PAN./2023 4 MA.Nos.5, 6, & 7/PAN./2023 3. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance is that the learned lower authorities had rightly rejected the assessee’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim on the ground that it had derived its interest income from regular as well as nominal members. This tribunal appears to have followed hon’ble apex court’s decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) that such a distinction is no more admissible in law. The Revenue’s case before us is that the assessee society has derived income from non-members crossing the statutory limit of 15% and 5 MA.Nos.5, 6, & 7/PAN./2023 therefore, this claim of sec.80P deduction is not allowable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance as this tribunal has already considered all the relevant facts and circumstances in the main order whilst rejecting the Revenue’s identical stand in the former round of proceedings. We therefore quote [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; and [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. have settled the law that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification is only to correct apparent mistakes than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries. We, therefore, decline the Revenue’s instant all three miscellaneous applications. Ordered accordingly. 5. These Revenue’s three miscellaneous applications are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [G.D. PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 14 th August, 2023 VBP/- 6 MA.Nos.5, 6, & 7/PAN./2023 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Belagavi. 4. The Pr. CIT, Belagavi. 5. D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.