M/S.VADAYAR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 711/COCH/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 January 2020AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 154 to rectify his own order, especially when the Assessing Officer had not appealed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should have considered remanding the matter for fresh inquiry rather than restoring the original assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative bank, claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2011-12. Initially, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction, but later rectified the order under Section 154, disallowing it based on a subsequent High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can rectify his own order under Section 154 based on a subsequent judgment, and whether the matter should have been remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 09.01.2020Pronounced: 10.01.2020

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.711/Coch/2019
SA No.121/Coch/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 30.09.2019, passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee has also preferred a stay application seeking to stay the recovery of outstanding tax arrears. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the return of income was filed on 18.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.Nil, after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, disallowing the claim of . 2 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd. deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act was that the assessee was doing the business of banking, and therefore, in view of insertion of section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act with effect from 01.04.2007, the assessee will not be entitled to the deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim of deduction with regard to interest income received by the assessee on investments made with District Co-operative Banks.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of assessment denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The interest income received from other banks and treasury also was allowed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. In allowing the appeal of the assessee, the CIT(A) followed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- operative Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker.).

4.

Subsequently, the CIT(A) issued notice u/s 154 of the I.T.Act proposing to rectify his order passed, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [ITA No.97/2016 order dated 19th March, 2019]. The assessee objected to the issuance of . 3 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd. notices. However, the CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee and passed order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- “

A. The impugned order to the extent objected to herein is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The appellate authority went wrong in invoking powers under Sec.154 and upsetting its own order, when the assessing authority has accepted the order in appeal and did not file any appeal to the Tribunal against the said order. It is submitted that it is an abuse of Sec.154 of the Act. C. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not appreciating the ratio of the Judgment of the Full Bench reported in 414 ITR

67. The jurisdictional High Court has only declared that registration per se would not be sufficient for want of deduction under Sec.80P. Therefore in the absence of enquiry as to the nature of the activity undertaken by the assessee, the denial of deduction under Sec.80P is bad in law. D. The Officer ought to have remanded the matter back for de novo consideration in tune with judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court rather than usurping the jurisdiction of the assessing authority and restoring the assessment as completed by him. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is humbly prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.”

6.

The learned AR relied on the grounds raised. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the Income-tax authorities.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in . 4 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd. the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker.)] had held that when a certificate has been issued to an assessee by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies characterizing it as primary agricultural credit society, necessarily, the deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act has to be granted to the assessee. However, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) had reversed the above findings of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) held that the Assessing Officer has to conduct an inquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society to determine the eligibility of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the Assessing Officer is not bound by the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Kerala Co-operative Society classifying the assessee-society as a co-operative society. The Hon’ble High Court held that each assessment year is separate and eligibility shall be verified by the Assessing Officer for each of the assessment years. The finding of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follows:- “33. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society [397 ITR 1] it cannot be contended that, while considering the claim made by an assessee society for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, after the introduction of sub-section (4) thereof, the Assessing Officer has to extend the benefits available, merely looking at the class of the society as per the . 5 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd.

certificate of registration issued under the Central or State Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. On such a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not in the light of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 80P.

33.

In Chirakkal [384 ITR 490] the Division Bench held that the appellant societies having been classified as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies by the competent authority under the KCS Act, it has necessarily to be held that the principal object of such societies is to undertake agricultural credit activities and to provide loans and advances for agricultural purposes, the rate of interest on such loans and advances to be at the rate to be fixed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the KCS Act and having its area of operation confined to a Village, Panchayat or a Municipality and as such, they are entitled for the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the IT Act to ease themselves out from the coverage of Section 80P and that, the authorities under the IT Act cannot probe into any issues or such matters relating to such societies and that, Primary Agricultural Credit Societies registered as such under the KCS Act and classified so, under the Act, including the appellants are entitled to such exemption.

34.

In Chirakkal [384 ITR 490] the Division Bench expressed a divergent opinion, without noticing the law laid down in Antony Pattukulangara [2012 (3) KHC 726] and Perinthalmanna [363 ITR 268]. Moreover, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Chirakkal [384 ITR 490] is not good law, since, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society [397 ITR 1], on a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, by reason of sub-section (4) thereof, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not in the light of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the IT Act. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co- operative Society [397 ITR 1] the law laid down by the Division Bench Perinthalmanna [363 ITR 268] has to be affirmed and we do so.

35.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ace Multi Axes Systems’ case (supra), since each assessment year is a separate unit, the intention of the legislature is in . 6 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd. no manner defeated by not allowing deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, by reason of sub-section (4) thereof, if the assessee society ceases to be the specified class of societies for which the deduction is provided, even if it was eligible in the initial years.”

7.1 The CIT(A) had initially allowed the appeal of the assessee and granted deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act. Subsequently, the CIT(A) passed order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, wherein the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act was denied, by relying on the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The CIT(A) ought not to have rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act without examining the activities of the assessee- society. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. CIT (supra) had held that the A.O. has to conduct an inquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society to determine the eligibility of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. In view of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), we restore the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2) to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine the activities of the assessee and determine whether the activities are in compliance with the activities of a co-operative society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and accordingly grant deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act.

7.2 As regards the interest on the investments with Co- operative Banks and other Banks, the co-ordinate Bench

. 7 SA No.121/Coch/2019. M/s.Vadayar Service Co-op Bank Ltd. order of the Tribunal in the case of Kizhathadiyoor Service Co- operative Bank Limited in (order dated 20.07.2016), had held that interest income earned from investments with treasuries and banks is part of banking activity of the assessee, and therefore, the said interest income was eligible to be assessed as `income from business’ instead of `income from other sources’. However, as regards the grant of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act on such interest income, the Assessing Officer shall follow the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. CIT (supra) and examine the activities of the assessee-society before granting deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act on such interest income. It is ordered accordingly.

8.

Since we have disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee, the Stay Application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 10th day of January, 2020.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →