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.154/PAN./2019 Assessment year 2014-2015 M/s. Jai Hanuman Credit The PCIT, Souhardh Sahakari Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Limited, A/p : Ingali, Opp. Civil Hospital, Chikodi Taluka of Belgavi vs. Belagavi. District, State of Karnataka. PIN – 590 001 PIN – 591 201 State of Karnataka. PAN AABAT0857G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sachin Nichale For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2014- 2015, arise against the PCIT, Belgavi’s order F.No.263/Pr.CIT/ BGV/2018-19/1772 dated 21.02.2019, involving proceedings u/sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
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 assessment;
2 ITA.No.154/PAN./2019 u/sec.143(3) of the Act. 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 assessment framed hereinabove as an erroneous one 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 the impugned assessment year 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 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 3 ITA.No.154/PAN./2019 Act. That being the case, we accept the assessee’s contentions challenging correctness of the learned PCIT’s revision directions in the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessment stand restored as a necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2023.