M/S SAMRUDHA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 926/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 April 2018AY 2013-143 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the failure of the assessee to appear and rectify the defects in the appeal filing. Following a precedent, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a credit co-operative society, filed an appeal against the denial of deduction under Section 80P. The appeal was heard ex-parte as the assessee did not appear, and several defects in the appeal filing were also noted.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee fails to appear and rectify defects in the filing. The primary issue also involved the applicability of Section 80P deduction to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 12.04.2018Pronounced: 20.04.2018

O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Thisappeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order ofld. CIT(A)-5, Bangalore dated 16.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer is not Justified in denying the deduction by saying "Section 80P (4) is taking away, effectively the privilege given u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) for other co-operative societies and banks".

3. The Learned Assessing Officer has misinterpreted the section 80P (4) where it clearly says that the provisions of Section 80P doesn't apply to any cooperative bank. We are registered under the Societies Act and not governed by the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the Learned Assessing Officer is not Justified in not allowing deduction u/s 80P(1)(a) despite specific plea made by the appellant in this regard.

4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the facts of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of The Citizen Co- operative Society Ltd Civil Appeal No 10245 of 2017, where it was held that any income that the Appellant has been denied the benefit of 80P(2)(a)(i) on the grounds that it mostly collected deposits from the nominal members and lent loan to nominal members. The Appellant cannot be treated as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members". In our case, Appellant is accepting deposits and providing loans only to members. Therefore, the above judgment of Supreme Court does not hold good in the case of Appellant.

5. The Learned Assessing Officer has not considered the facts of Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sri Bilure Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, quoting that the case has not reached finality as it is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Decision of Karnataka High Court is binding irrespective of interpretation of the Learned Assessing officer. On the basis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order passed under section 143(3) be quashed and relief sought be granted.”

3.

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 12.04.2018 and notice of hearing was sent to assessee’s address provided by assessee in form no. 36 and hence, the service of notice is presumed. In spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing i.e. 12.04.2018 and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. This is also noted that along with the notice for hearing, defect memo was also issued to the assessee as per which it was pointed out that there are several defects being a. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300 b. Assessment order is not legible c. Form 35 not filed in duplicate

4.

The assessee has not removed these defects also. Under these facts, I hold that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable and by respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →