TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record any evidence that in preceding year, the Assessing Officer’s order in A.Y. 2007-08 had not been accepted by the department. By respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.(2014 (2) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) on identical issue, we hold that the assessee is a cooperative society not a cooperative bank and is entitled for deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Assessee’s appeal is allowed - ITA No. 183/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - Shri T.R.Meena, AM Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : None (Date of noted) (W.S. filed by Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.) For the Revenue : Shri Kailash Mangal (JCIT) ORDER PE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had claimed deduction U/s 80P of the Act in the revised return filed on 03/8/2011 on the same amount and declared NIL income. The assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer but no reply was filed from the assessee, therefore, he assessed the assessee s income at ₹ 83,67,254/-. Further the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that it is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and Primary Cooperative Agricultural Rural Development Bank. After considering the assessee s submission, the ld Assessing Officer held that in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the deduction U/s 80P had been denied by the Assessing Officer, which was upheld by the ld CIT(A) in both the years. The ld Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O. amounting to ₹ 83,67,254/- is confirmed for the reasons given in the appellate order of A.Y. 2008-09. 4. Now the assessee is appeal before us. No one appeared on behalf of assessee but written submissions has been filed by Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate. In written submissions, it has been submitted that in assessee s case for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the same issue has been considered by the Hon ble Bench wherein the ld Assessing Officer as well as ld CIT(A) had not allowed the deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in both the year, which was challenged before the Hon ble ITAT. The Hon ble ITAT has decided the assessee s own case in ITA No. 999/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2008- 09 order dated 17th July, 2015 and ITA No. 1777/JP/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t apply to it. In view of such clarification, we cannot entertain the Revenue s contention that section 80P(4) would exclude not only the co-operative banks other than those fulfilling the description contained therein but also credit societies, which are not cooperative banks. In the present case, respondent assessee is admittedly not a credit sooperative bank but a credit co-operative society. Exclusion clause of sub-section (4) of section 80P, therefore, would not apply. In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed. The department itself has allowed deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in A.Y. 2007-08, which has not been reopened U/s 148 and no order U/s 263 was passed by the department. The ld Dr had not brought on record any ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
