M/S HERGA VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, UDUPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 420/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 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 found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) after carefully examining it. The appeal was heard ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee argued that income from deposits should be treated under Section 28, not Section 56, and distinguished its case from the Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society ruling.

What were the issues?

Whether income earned on deposits by a cooperative society should be treated as business income (Section 28) or income from other sources (Section 56), and the applicability of the Totagar's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56,Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC – B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 28.03.2018Pronounced: 02.04.2018

Date of hearing : 28.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.04.2018 O R D E R

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him. The order being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 2) The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in treating income earned on deposits U/s 56 and not U/s 28 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3) The Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in applying the award of Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society by the honourable Supreme Court 2010(188) Taxmen 282 to the present case.

4) The Learned CIT (Appeal) has not considered our funds as operational funds. Our co-operative society carried out only one activity of accepting deposits from the members and lending the same again to the members. This makes much difference between the Totagar's case and our case. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing the appellant praises that the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) to be quashed. The appellant thus requests accordingly.”

2.

This appeal was called up for hearing on 28.03.2018, but none appeared on behalf of assessee. The notice of hearing has been served on the assessee. On perusal of record, it is noticed that on the last date of hearing also, the case was adjourned for non-appearance of the assessee. Therefore, despite having knowledge of the date fixed for hearing, there was no appearance. Accordingly, I have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee.

3.

I have, however, carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition made by the AO and I find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly the appeal is rejected.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 56

All 1,790 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →