TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chandran, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 26.03.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. The impugned assessment order is opposed to the facts of the case and evidences on record; and as such, liable to be cancelled. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P 2.1 The learned AO as well as the CIT(A) erred in disallowing of deduction of income u/s 80P(20(a)(i) of the Act, amounting to ₹ 20, 18, 933. 2.2 The learned Authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee is a cooperative society, even though it is registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, and therefore entitled to the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2.3 The learned AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant-society had neither accepted any deposit nor advanced any loan to the General Public and accordingly, the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., relied by him, was not applicable. 2.4 The learned AO/CIT(A) ought to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival submissions. Regarding the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Vijay Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd. (supra) on which reliance was placed by ld. DR of revenue as per which the matter was restored back to AO to examine the applicability of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), I find that in the present case, this is not the case of the AO as per the assessment order that this judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) is applicable in the present case. As per the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) also, no finding of ld. CIT(A) is there that this judgment rendered in the case of The Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) is applicable in the present case. Hence, I hold that this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has no applicability in the present case in view of the facts discussed above. Regarding the argument of ld. DR of revenue that the earlier Tribunal order rendered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Udaya Souharda Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and therefore, the conclusion of the revenue authorities that cooperative societies and co-operatives are different and that cooperative registered as Souharda Sahakari cannot be regarded as co-operative societies is unsustainable. After holding so, the Tribunal restored back the matter to the AO for fresh decision regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 80P of the IT Act after examining the fulfilment of other conditions in that regard. For ready reference, we reproduce para nos. 5 to 11 of this Tribunal order rendered in the case of Siddartha Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha Vs. ITO (supra) by SMC bench of the Tribunal on 26.07.2019. These paras are as under: 5. I have heard the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Souharda Sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 are also co-operative societies within the meaning of Sec.2(19) of the Act and therefore the revenue authorities were not justified in denying the benefit of deduction to the Assessee. The learned DR relied on a decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. Millennium Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA Nos. 2606 2607/Bang/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were included into the Cooperative act thus heralding the resurgence of a new era in cooperative movement. The state and the central governments were investing millions of rupees in the form of shares, grants, subsidy, contributions, government support, etc., but the expected results couldn t be achieved in cooperative movements. This condition continued almost until early 1980s. 9. Keeping this in mind, the Central Government setup a committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Ardhanarishwaran, which submitted its report in 1987. It attributed the failure of the cooperative movement to the excessive interference of the governments. It is also true that the unabated party politics in the co-operative movement is also a big hindrance to its progress. Realizing the vital role of the cooperative movement in the progress of the society, the Central Planning Commission set up a committee by appointing Shri Chaudari Brahmaprakash as its head with a task of drafting a Model Cooperative Act which will prevent interference of the governments. This committee, after a detailed study of the Cooperative Acts of various states, drafted a Model Cooperative Act in 1991 and Central Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act needs to be examined by the AO. I, therefore, remand the question of allowing deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the AO, except the issue already decided above. 5. Respectfully following this Tribunal order, I hold that the assessee s claim regarding deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be rejected on this basis that assessee is a Souharda Sahakari and therefore, cannot be regarded as a co-operative society. But after holding so, I set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO for fresh decision regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act after examining other conditions for allowing such deduction because those conditions are not examined by the AO till now. I ordered accordingly. 6. Since the issue involved in this appeal is identical to that of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sindhu Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita (supra), respectfully following the same, I remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, on similar line. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
