THE GOKAK TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 213/PAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 July 2023AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice. It held that the assessee's status as a cooperative society should be determined by its registration, not the nature of its membership, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a primary teachers cooperative society, was denied deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) by the lower authorities who treated it as a cooperative bank. The appeal was filed with a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) despite the lower authorities treating it as a cooperative bank, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(i)(a),Section 80P(iv),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 13.07.2023Pronounced: 26.07.2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.213/PAN./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 The Gokak Taluk Primary Teachers Coop Society, The Income Tax Officer, Opp. JSS College, Falls Ward – 1, Dr. Ghodageri Road, Gokak – 591 307 Building, Main Road, vs. District : Belgaum Gokak – 591 307. Karnataka District Belgaum PAN AAAAT4120D Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sateesh Nadagouda For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010- 2011, arise against the CIT(A), Belgaum’s order dated 04.12.2013, in case ITA.No.131/BGM/11-12, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.213/PAN./2019 1. “The order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and on facts. 2. The learned Assessing Officer & CIT(A) have not considered the facts & submissions and not allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any Ground of Appellant.”

3.

Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of sec.80P(2)(i)(a) deduction of Rs.62,89,701/- which has been disallowed by both the learned lower authorities respective orders, thereby treating the assessee as a cooperative bank than a “cooperative society” u/s.2(19) of the Act.

4.

Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing before us that not only this assessee is “a cooperative bank” but also it comprises of both regular as well as nominal members. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments seeking to invoke sec.80P(iv) of the Act in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) holding that an assessee’s status has to be seen as per it’s registration and nature of membership hardly forms the eligibility criteria to deny the impugned deduction. We accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance accordingly.

3 ITA.No.213/PAN./2019 5. We find at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal instituted on 12.03.2029 suffers from 1806 days delay which is treated to be attributable to various communication gaps and other miscellaneous reasons. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, therefore, condone the impugned delay.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →