Ito 27 2 1 Navi Mumbai v. Kalbhairavnath Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd Mumbai

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches A Mumbai Before S Hri G S Pannu Am And Shri Ram Lal Negi Jm Ita No 3123 Mum 20 1 7 Assessment Year 2012 13 The Income Tax Officer 27 2 1 Room No 413 4 Th Floor Tower No 6 Vashi Railway Station Complex Vashi Navi Mumbai 400703 Vs M S Kalbhairavnath Sahakari Patsastha Ltd Shop No 3 K S Pareira Chawl R B Kadam Marg Bhatwadi Ghatkopar W Mumbai 400084 Pan Aaaak 5684 K Appellant Respondent R Evenue By Shri Saurabh Deshpande Dr Assessee By Shri Rajendra V Kadrekar Ar Date Of Hearing 04 09 201 7 Date Of Pronouncement 04 12 201 7 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 08 02 2017 Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 35 Mumbai For The A S S Essment Year 2012 13 Whereby The Ld Cit A Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U S 143 3 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Short The A Ct 2 Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Co Operative Credit Society Carrying On The Business Of Accepting Deposits And Giving C Redit Facilities To Its Member S Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Nil Income Since The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Notices U S 143 2 And 142 1 Of The Act Were Issued In Response Thereof The Authori Zed Representative Of The Assessee Appeared And Submitted The Details Called For By The Ao It Was Seen That The Assessee Had Declared Income From 2 Ita No 3123 Mum 2017 Assessment Year 2012 3 Business And Profession At Rs 32 19 083 And Had Claimed Deduction U S 80 P 2 Of The Act The Authorized R Epresentative Of The Assessee Contended That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society And Not A Co Operative Bank Therefore Amended Section 80 P 4 Is Not Applicable Hence The Assessee Has Rightly Made Deduction U S 80 P 4 Of The Act The Contenti On Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ao And Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs 32 19 083 In First Appeal The Ld Cit A Deleted The Addition Following The Decision Of The Itat Mumbai Rendered In The Assessees Own Case For The A Y 2009 10 3 Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld Cit Appeal S The Revenue Has Preferred This Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Following Effective Grounds 1 On The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case And In Law The Ld Cit A Erred In Allowing The Ded Uction U S 80 P Of The I T Act 1961 Under The Provisions Of Section 80 P 4 Of The Act Which In Fact Is Applicable To Only Co Operative Bank Except For Primary Agricultural Credit Society Or A Primary Co Operative Agricultural And Rural Development Bank An D The Provisions Of Section 80 P 4 Of The Act Are Not Applicable To Co Operative Credit Society 2 The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Cit A On The Above Grounds Be Reversed And That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored 4 Before Us The Ld Dep Artmental Representative Dr Relying On The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Submitted That The Findings Of The Ld Cit A Is Erroneous As The Provisions Of Section 80 P 4 Of The Act Is Applicable To The Assessee Being A Co Operative Credit Society 5 On The Other Hand The Ld Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Assessees Case Is Covered By The Order Of Itat Dated 20 10 2015 Passed In Assessees Own Case Ita No 5830 Mum 2014 For The A Y 2009 10 Hence There Is No Merit In Th E Appeal Of The Revenue 3 Ita No 3123 Mum 2017 Assessment Year 2012 3 6 We Have Heard The Rival Submissions And Also Gone Through The Material On Record Including The Decision Rendered By The C O Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In Assessees Own Case For The A Y 2009 10 The Co Ordinate Bench Has Decided The Identical Issue In Favour Of The Assessee In Assessees Own Case Supra The Concluding Para Of The Decision Of The Co Ordinate Bench Reads As Under 6 Though The Ld Departmental Representative Has Reiterated The Reasoning Adopted By Th E Assessing Officer To Deny Exemption Under Section 80 P 2 A I Of The Act So However It Is Quite Clear That The Restriction Placed Under Section 80 P 4 Of The Act Does Not Entitle The Captioned Assessee From The Exemption Stipulated Under Section 80 P 2 A I Of The Act Quite Clearly The Restriction Placed In Section 80 P 4 Of The Act In The Present Context Operates In Relation To A Co Operative Bank Which Is To Be Understood In Terms Of The Provisions Of The Banking Regulations Act 1949 10 Of 1949 The Finding Of The Cit A Is That The Respondent Assessee Is A Credit Co Operative Society Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members And Does Not Enjoy Any Banking License From Reserve Bank Of India As A Consequence The Status Of The Assessee Cannot Be Understood As A Co Operative Bank Within The Meaning Of Banking Regulation Act 1949 Factually Speaking The Aforesaid Finding Of The Cit A Has Not Been Assailed By The Revenue Before Me And There Is No Material On Record To Negate The Same Also Moreover I Find That The Cit A Has Relied Upon The Various Decisions Of The Tribunal Wherein A Co Operative Credit Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members Has Been Held T O Be Not Covered By The Expression Co Operative Bank For The Purposes Of Section 80 P 4 Of The Act There Is No Decision To The Contrary Brought Out By The Revenue Before Me 7 The Identical Issue Has Already Been Decided By The Co Ordinate Bench In F Avour Of The Assessee In The Assessees Own Case For The A Y 2009 10 Supra The Impugned Order Passed By The Ld Cit A Is In 4 Ita No 3123 Mum 2017 Assessment Year 2012 3 Accordanc E With The Decision Rendered By The Co Ordinate Bench In Assessees Own Case For The A Y 2009 10 Supra Hence We Do Not Find Any Merit In The Appeal Of The Revenue Accordingly We Uphold The Findings Of The Ld Cit A And Dismiss The Sole Ground Of Appeal Of The Revenue In The Result Appeal Filed By The Revenue For A Ssessment Year 2012 213 Is Dismissed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 4 Th December 2017 Sd Sd G S Pannu Ram Lal Negi Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated 04 12 2017 Alindra Ps Copy Of The Order Forwarded To 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 The Cit A 4 Cit 5 Dr Itat Mumbai 6 Guard File By Order True Copy Dy Asstt Registrar Itat Mumbai