MANMANDIR CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

Shri M.K. Kulkarni, the ld. AR submits that the assessee has no interest to prosecute ground No. 1 and prayed to dismiss the same as not

Ground No. 2 relating to confirmation of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of denying the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank operating a branch at Mayani, Taluka Khatav, District Satara. The assessee engaged in the banking business and controlled by the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the RBI. The main activity of the bank is to accept the deposits from the public, lending to the borrowers and invest in various deposits and securities. According to AO, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act for Rs.42,00,000/- being 10% of the aggregate average advances made by its rural branch. According to the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not entitled to claim said deduction as the population of Mayani Village is above 10,000 as per census conducted in the year 2011. The assessee explained that as on the first day of previous year i.e 01-04-2012 the figure of population as per latest census is not available and the census of population figure of previous preceding census is to be considered and placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Dy. Director, Census Division, Mumbai dated 05-02-2016. The fact remains admitted that Dy. Director, Census Division published the final figures of data of Census 2011 on 23-05-2013 wherein the population of said Mayani Village is 10,872 as on 01-04-2012 but however as rightly pointed out by

The contention of Sri Abhijit Haldar, the ld. DR is that the figure of population as per data census 2011 concerning the issue was available through official website of Government at www.censusindia.gov.in and the assessee is in the knowledge of the same. The Ld.DR referred to page no‟s 3 and 4 of AO and argued that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We find that the final data of population as per Census, 2011 was published on 23-05-2013 which is supported by the certificate dated 05-02-2016 issued by the Dy. Director, Census Division, Mumbai, clearly establishes that the final data of population as per census 2011 relating to Mayani Village was not available on public domain as on the first day of previous year 01-04-2012 relating to assessment year under consideration.

Sub Clause (ia) of clause (viia) of sub-section of section 36 of the Act provides the definition of rural branch means a branch of a scheduled bank or a non scheduled bank situated in a place which has a population of not more than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of previous year. Admittedly, in the present case as discussed above the FY is 12-13, the last preceding census is 2011 which have not been published before the first day of previous year i.e 01-04-2012 as per the definition provided under the provisions of section 36 of the Act. In the said circumstances when the publication of data of population for last preceding census 2011 is not available, the data of figure of population of previous preceding

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.