JOINT CIT (OSD),CIRCLE-3, KALYAN vs. BAHUJAN VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3914/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 April 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect on the disputed additions was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 40,03,080/-. The assessee, a cooperative society, was engaged in accepting deposits and advancing loans to its members.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect below the prescribed limit, and whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria

Date of Hearing – 23.04.2019 Date of Order – 23.04.2019

O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.

The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 26th March 2018, passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals)–1, Thane, pertaining to the assessment year 2014–15.

2 Bahujan Vidyut Employees Co–operative Society Ltd.

2.

Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:–

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,03,0801- on account of disallowance u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting above relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee is carrying on the business of accepting deposits and advancing loans to its members which are the primary activities of any bank whether co-operative or otherwise. 2.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessees is a co–operative society whose share capital and reserves exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. 2.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee is registered under the Maharashtra state co-operative societies Act.”

3.

When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative, at the outset, fairly submitted before us that the tax effect on the quantum of additions contested by the Revenue is less than the prescribed limit of ` 20 lakh fixed for filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hence, is covered by Circular no.3/2018, dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

3 Bahujan Vidyut Employees Co–operative Society Ltd.

5.

We have gone through the CBDT Circular as referred to above and find that the tax effect on the quantum of additions disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the threshold limit of ` 20 lakh. Therefore, as per the CBDT Circular referred to above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable, since, the aforesaid Circular by CBDT applies even to the pending appeals. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 2. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.04.2019

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →