Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI
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.
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.”
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.
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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2023.