Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 86 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) allowability - as per AO that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank in the category of primary co-operative bank and is hit by provisions of Section 80P(4) - assessee claimed that it provides credit facilities to its members only and hence it is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - CIT-A decided the issue in favour of the assessee - tribunal based on material which is available on record the assessee is not a Co-operative Bank but a Co-operative credit society and also noticed that there are two types of members which the assessee can make as per bye laws firstly active members and second nominal members. The active members can give deposit , take loans and also are entitled to vote at the meetings but there is another class of members namely nominal members who are retired employees of Tata Memorial Hospital who cannot give deposits to assessee, nor take loans from assessee as well these nominal members are not entitled to vote at the meetings - assessee is now seeking recall of the said well reasoned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by tribunal on the grounds that there was no dispute between the Revenue and the assessee as to the nominal members and also it is made out that facts in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Limited [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] were different HELD THAT:- The scope available with tribunal u/s 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from records and we do not find any mistake apparent from records in well reasoned order [2018 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT MUMBAI] passed by tribunal in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Citizen Co-operative(supra), as in case of the assessee there is also an class of nominal members who are not entitled to give deposits, take loans or even they are not allowed to vote in meetings but they are only allowed to place their retirement benefits. Thus, we find there is no mistake apparent from records in the appellate order dated 31.07.2018 passed by tribunal which can be rectified within limited mandate of Section 254(2). At this stage we would also like to refer to recent decision in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. CIT [2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . Thus, in our considered view this MA lacks merit and we are inclined to dismiss this MA. We order accordingly.
|