HUNNUR SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT HUNNUR,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , BAGALKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1339/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 August 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without a decision on the merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The NFAC rejected this claim ex-parte without deciding on merits. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 250,Section 80P(4)

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, “B” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 21.08.2024

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hunnur Souhard Credit Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Hunnur Basaveshwar Complex, Hunnur ITO Jamakhandi Vs. Ward-2 Bagalkot 587 119 Bagalkot PAN NO : AAAAH8911N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department Date of Hearing : 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 O R D E R

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S. JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC dated 16.05.2024 for the assessment yar 2017-18 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act).

2.

The assessee came in appeal before us with regard to rejecting the claim of assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by ex-parte order of NFAC.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after taking into note of the order of the decision of this Tribunal in Hunnur Souhard Credit Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Hunnur Page 2 of 3 the case of Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha in to 454/Bang/2024 dated 1.5.2024, where in the Tribunal held as under: “4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. (123 taxman.com 161) had held that the co- operative societies providing credit facilities to its members is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the judicial pronouncements on the subject, had stated the term “member” has not been defined under the Income-tax Act. It was, therefore, stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the term “member” in the respective State Co-operative Societies Acts under which the societies are registered have to be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that if nominal / associate member is not prohibited under the said Act, for being taken as a member, the income earned on account of providing credit facilities to such member also qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act is to be read as a proviso. It was stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that section 80P(4) of the Act now specifically excludes only co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in the business of banking i.e. engaged in lending money to members of the public, which have a license in this behalf from the RBI. The Hon’ble Apex Court had enunciated various principles in regard to deduction u/s 80P of the Act. On identical factual situation, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ravindra Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO in (order dated 31.08.2021) had remanded the issue to the files of the A.O. for de novo consideration. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. (supra). The relevant finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ravindra Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO (supra), reads as follows:- “6. Grounds 2-4 & additional Ground No.1: In respect of associate / nominal members, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 161 (SC) has held that the expression “Members” is not defined in the Income-tax Act. Hence, it is necessary to construe the expression “Members” in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of definition of that expression as contained in the concerned co-operative societies Act. In view of this, the facts are to be examined in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (surpa). Accordingly, we remit this issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the files of Ld.AO to examine the same de novo in the light of the above judgment. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assess in accordance with law.”

Hunnur Souhard Credit Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Hunnur Page 3 of 3 4.1 In view of the order of the ITAT, which is identical to the facts of the case, we restore the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the file of the A.O. for de novo consideration.” 3.1 Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

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

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →