KAKATI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), BELGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 85/PAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 October 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without examining the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the relevant Supreme Court judgments and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for providing credit facilities to its members. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order rejecting the claim, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred by not considering interest paid on fixed deposits used for member loans and by passing an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, and whether the interest paid on fixed deposits for member loans is deductible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI, BENCH PANAJI

Hearing: 08/10/2021Pronounced: 08/10/2021

O R D E R

Per Bench : This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A), Gulbarga, dated 29.12.2017 for the assessment year 2012- 2013. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte qua the assessee. He argued that assessee is a cooperative society registered under the State Cooperative Society the main object of the society is to accept to deposits and provide financial accommodation to the member s of the society therefore, it has claimed that the society was entitled deduction u/s80P (2)(a) (i) as it is being a cooperative society providing credit facilities to its members only. The ld. Counsel contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred by not allowing the interest paid on loans on the fixed deposits which was taken for providing loans to its members. In support of its contentions he placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society, citation TS 324 – HON'BLE SUPREME COURT-2017 dated 16.08.2017 and the Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors vs. CIT, Civil Appeal Nos. 7343 to 7350/2019 dated January 12, 2021.

3.

The ld. DR stand by the order of the ld. CIT(A) he submitted that the Apex Court in the case of M/s Totga Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. Is applicable to the facts of the case as there were no payable to the creditors who supplied agriculture produce to the society and the amount payable to the creditors was being invested in respected banks.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee holding that assessee failed to explain why the assessee’s case was not covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society [TS-326-Supreme Court-2017], dated 16th August, 2017. It is seen that the submission filed by the assessee before us were not examined by the ld. CIT(A) and passed in order ex parte qua the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be approved.

5.

In view of the introduction of sub section 4 to section 80P of the Act the AO while examining the claim made by the society for such deduction cannot be allowed merely looking at class of society as per certificate of registration issued under the Central or State Societies Act since each assessment is a separate assessment, the intention of legislature is a no manner defeated by not allowing deduction u/s 80P why reason of sub

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →