SHRIPATRAO DADA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, KOLHAPUR

The first ground is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the ld. A.O. of Rs. 91,150/- being admission fees received from nominal members admitted. The A.O has discussed this issue at para 5 of his order. On verification of the details furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by the ld. A.O that the assessee bank was in receipt of Rs. 91,150/- being fees received from nominal members. However, the assessee had credited the same into Balance sheet under the head “Reserve Fund’ and not credited to P & L account though it is of revenue nature. The assessee filed explanation before the ld. A.O and submitted their reasons for not crediting the said amount to the P & L account. The ld. A.O did not accept the contention of the assessee and opined that these receipts were received by the assessee during the course of banking business of the assessee. The said facilities were provided to these persons who required loans, etc. and for providing such banking facilities to them. Then membership fees were collected. Thereafter, the ld. A.O relied on CIT(A)’s order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 as well as for A.Y. 2011-12 in which also it was held that these receipts are revenue in nature and were required to be credited in the P & L account. Accordingly, for this year also, the ld. A.O held the fees of Rs. 91,500/- received from nominal members were revenue in nature and was added to the total income of the assessee for the purpose of taxation.

The ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue at para 5.1 of his order where he upheld the findings of the ld. A.O and has classified types of members of the assessee bank and the functions and the rights of each category of members has been discussed. However, we do not find any specific and categoric reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the addition of fees received from nominal members as compared with that

Ground No. 2 is with regard to the confirmation of addition by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 2,21,022/- on account of short deduction of TDS from the payment made to pigmy collectors. The ld. A.O has discussed this issue at para 6 of his order and the facts are that the assessee bank had debited pigmy commission of Rs. 8,76,151/- on which TDS was required to be made while making the payment or crediting the same in respect of payees account. That on verification, it was noticed that the assessee bank had failed to deduct TDS on this pigmy commission of Rs. 2,21,022/-. The ld. A.O invoked section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed and added back the amount of Rs. 2,21,022/- to the total income of the assessee. The fact that is generated as per the findings of the ld. CIT(A) at para 5.2 of his order is that there is an admission by the assessee that he has paid the commission but has not deducted TDS since they were below taxable limit. It is also clear from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that there was no proper representation by the assessee before him and the submissions made were very much vague and unclear. The assessee has also not produced their Form 26A in the hands of the recipients to show that they have accounted the commission paid to them as their income. The assessee has also not

In Ground No. 3 the assessee contends that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,20,000/- made by the ld. A.O. The facts on this issue are that the ld. A.O noticed that there was closing balance in respect of building fund as on 31-03-2014 of Rs 1,54,45,623.75 which was increased to Rs. 1,75,65,683.75 and thus there was an increase in the building fund of Rs. 21,20,060/- during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. In this regard, explanation was sought for from the assessee and he submitted written submissions which was considered by the ld. A.O. Thereafter, the ld. A.O observed at para 7.4 that for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 also this issue was confirmed and was held in favour of the revenue. Moreover, the ld. A.O even called for the bye-laws of the assessee bank and found that as per the bye-laws, the assessee bank was not authorized to collect building fund or any other fund. Further, the District Registrar for Co- operative Societies has also not accorded permission for collection of the building fund. The bank is collecting fund for the purposes of

The modus operandi is clear that the bank while giving loan to outsiders or non-members they collect the funds from them in the name of construction of the building(s) which is accumulated to the building fund account. The assessee bank as per its bye-laws is not authorized to collect any money from members or outsiders or non-members for the purposes of building construction. What the assessee bank has been doing is against such bye-laws and collecting money from the non- members/outsiders on percentage basis for giving loans to them. The assessee is also claiming depreciation on these capital assets which has been equally constructed from the money taken from outside members. Clearly this is an act violating the bye-laws of the assessee bank. The same issue has also been disallowed in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010- 11 and also A.Y. 2012-13 and the facts are absolutely identical and similar for this year also. Even at the time of hearing, the ld. A.R could

Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is consequential.

In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.