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.Nos.133 to 139/ PAN./2019 Assessment years 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 M/s. Shree Mahila Credit The PCIT, Souhard Sahakari Ltd., O/o. Commissioner of Arjun Empire, Near Arun Income Tax, Khimjibhai Talkies, Congress Road, Complex, Dr. B.R. vs. Tilakwadi, Belgaum. Ambedkar Road, Opp. PIN – 590 006. Civil Hospital, Belaum. PAN AABAS9244A PIN – 590 002 State of Karnataka. State of Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER PER BENCH :
The instant batch of seven appeals pertains to a single assessee viz., M/s. Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd. It has filed it’s appeal ITA.Nos.133 to 139/ PAN./2019, for the corresponding assessment years 2009- 2010 to 2015-2016, against the PCIT, Belgavi’s separate orders F.No.263/Prl.CIT/BGV/2018-19/674, 668, 1670, 1667, 1671, 1672, and 1669, all dated 05.02.2019, involving proceedings u/sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively.
2 ITA.Nos.133 to & 139/PAN./2019 Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole dispute between the parties is that of assessee’s eligibility to claim sec.80P deductions which duly stood accepted by the assessing authority(ies) in the correspondent assessments; all framed u/sec.143(3) of the Act. There is further no quarrel between the parties that the assessee’s impugned deduction claims involve varying sums in all these assessment years. To be more precise, the solitary substantial issue between the parties is regarding correctness of learned PCIT’s revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessments framed hereinabove as erroneous ones causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue for having treated this taxpayer as a “cooperative society” registered u/sec.2(19) of the Act. We wish to reiterate once again that the Revenue’s stand before us in light of the PCIT’s revision directions is that the assessee is not a “cooperative society” within the meaning of sec.2(19) of the Act being only a “Souharda” society registered under the state law(s). It therefore, vehemently argued before us that the PCIT’s revision directions in all these cases deserve to be upheld in very terms.
All these Revenue’s arguments fail to evoke our concurrence as the instant issue of assessee; a “Souharda” cooperative society being covered u/sec.2(19) of the Act, is no 3 ITA.Nos.133 to & 139/PAN./2019 more res integra in light of the valuable guidance coming from hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision [2022] 134 taxmann.com 62 (Kar.) Sri Matha Vivododdesha Pathina Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha vs. Union of India. Their lordships’ have settled the law therein that a “Souharda” cooperative society registered under the state cooperative law(s) very well forms “a cooperative society” u/sec.2(19) of the Act. That being the case, we accept the assessee’s contentions challenging correctness of the learned PCIT’s revision directions in all these assessment years. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessments stand restored as a necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly.
These assessees’ seven appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2023.