Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1832 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT held that in order to do the business of a cooperative bank, it is imperative to have a licence from the Reserve Bank of India. It can therefore be said that a co-operative society which does not possess a license from RBI cannot be equated to a co-operative Bank, even though it might indulge in the business of banking. We find force in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee because we find that the facts of the present case and the facts of that case i.e. The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT(supra) are not discussed and compared by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Before following any judgment, the facts of the case on hand and facts of that case should be discussed and compared and since this was not done by CIT(A), we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order - Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
- Denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) by ld. CIT (A) - Applicability of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT - Failure to compare facts of present case with the facts of the cited case by ld. CIT (A) Analysis: 1. Denial of Benefit of Deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i): The appeal was filed against the order of ld. CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee contended that the denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) was arbitrary and without proper application of mind. The appellant argued that as it was founded by the State Govt., the denial was unjustified. The CIT(A) was criticized for upholding the addition without proper reasoning and misdirecting himself. The appellant highlighted that the AO did not establish transactions with "NOMINATED" members or the general public, making the Supreme Court decision inapplicable. The appellant sought leave to amend grounds during the appeal. 2. Applicability of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court: The ld. AR of the assessee argued that the CIT (A) failed to compare the facts of the present case with The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The AR contended that without such a comparison, the order was not sustainable. The matter was requested to be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on a detailed comparison of facts. The ld. DR of revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, but the Tribunal found merit in the argument that a proper comparison was necessary before following any judgment. 3. Failure to Compare Facts by ld. CIT (A): The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, agreed with the assessee's contention that the CIT (A) did not discuss and compare the facts of the present case with The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT judgment. It was emphasized that before following any judgment, a thorough analysis and comparison of facts were essential. As the CIT (A) failed to do so, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a speaking and reasoned order after comparing the facts of both cases and allowing both sides adequate opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a detailed comparison of facts in legal judgments for a just decision.
|