INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD-1, DAVANGERE vs. M/S THE DAVANGERE HARIHAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HARIHAR

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the revenue are as under. “M/s The Davangere Harihar Urbon Co-operative Bank Limited Harihar Main Branch, # 1370/1315, Shobha Talkies Road, Nr. Po, Vageeshnagar Harihar-577601, Davangere with TAN: BLRT02990B (A.Y. 2012-13)

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the ground of appeal whether the persons to whom interest paid was paid by assessee were members or not and also ignored its own decision in the case of M/s Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd in 1246 to 1249/Bang/2017 dated 03.11.2017.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact whether the persons were members or not in light of the Apex Court judgement in the case of Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd v/s ACIT.”

3. In course of hearing, this was noted that the appeal of the revenue for same Assessment Year was earlier decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1537/Bang/2018 dated 26.10.2018 along with five other appeals of various branches of the same assessee. As per the grounds of appeal as reproduced Page 2 of 3 above, it comes out that these grounds are regarding pointing out some mistakes in the Tribunal order and hence, this should have been considered as M.P. filed by the revenue against this Tribunal order for the same Assessment Year in assessee’s own case but since the grounds were enclosed by the revenue along with Form No. 36, it was registered by the Registry of the Tribunal as an appeal and not as M.P. In view of these facts, the bench observed that this appeal of revenue is not maintainable and hence, we dismiss the same. At this juncture, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that even this is dismissed by the Tribunal, liberty should be granted to the revenue to file fresh M.P. if the AO is so advised against earlier Tribunal order for the same Assessment Year dated 26.10.2018 because if such leave is not granted, the AO will not be in a position to file fresh M.P. because the prescribed period of six months as per section 254(2) of the IT Act has already expired. In our considered opinion, the tribunal cannot condone the delay in filing of M. P. and therefore, the tribunal cannot grant such liberty to the revenue to file M. P. now but in view of the facts of the present case as discussed, we feel it proper to direct the registry to register the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue as a M. P. received on the same date i.e. on 15.04.2019 when the present appeal was filed and fix this M. P. separately for hearing after issuing notices to both sides because there is mistake of the revenue in filing the grounds of M. P. along with Form 36 as well as of the registry of the tribunal to register it as an appeal in stead of issuing a defect memo and therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the registry of the tribunal to register it as a M. P. received on the same date i.e. on 15.04.2019 against the tribunal order dated 26.10.2018 in ITA No. 1537/Bang/2018.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.