M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2801/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 April 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) did not properly compare the facts of the present case with the facts of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, appealed against the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A) had relied on a Supreme Court judgment but allegedly failed to compare the facts of the present case with the cited judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly applied the Supreme Court judgment by comparing the facts of the assessee's case with the facts of the cited case before denying the deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 27.03.2018Pronounced: 06.04.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-5, Bangalore dated 15.09.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is bad and unsustainable in the eye of law as the denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) is arbitrary and without proper application of mind since the appellant was a founded by the State Govt.

2. The order of CIT(A) in upholding the addition by denying the benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a) is highly perverse since he has gone on mere hypothesis, imagination & not arising out of the Asst. order and contrary to actual facts of the case.

3. The CIT(A) having elaborately discussed the decision of Apex court, has never given reason as to the applicability of the same to the case on hand; rather has misdirected himself by extracting facts of some other case and hence the impugned order is perverse.

4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it was NEVER the case of the AO that appellant had transactions with "NOMINATED" members nor did the appellant kept itself open for 'general public' and hence the decision of supreme court in Citizen Co-operative case was not at all applicable.

5. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the absence of a specific finding by the AO in the impugned order as to the various violations as observed by the AO in the case before the Apex Court, the CIT(A) cannot improve case to suggest what is not there and what was not found, by the AO. 6. Appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble court to amend, alter or modify any grounds, before or during hearing of the Appeal.”

3.

It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT (A) has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT as reported in 397 ITR 1but he has not discussed and compared the facts of the present case with the facts of that case and therefore, this order is not sustainable and it should be set aside. He also submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after comparing the facts of the present case with the facts of that case. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and we find force in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee because we find that the facts of the present case and the facts of that case i.e. The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT(supra) are not discussed and compared by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Before following any judgment, the facts of the case on hand and facts of that case should be discussed and compared and since this was not done by CIT(A), we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after comparing the facts of the present case and facts of that case and thereafter, the CIT(A) should pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 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 →