TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) does not lay out any law that a souharda registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 cannot be regarded as co-operative society entitled to benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal in the said order has only remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration because the issue was raised for the first time before tribunal and required a deeper examination. In the appeal decided by the Tribunal the Tribunal has in paragraph-5 of the order which is subject matter of this MP, has clearly given the reason as to why they cannot remand the issue to the revenue authorities because in the case which was subject matter of the appeal, the AO and CIT(A) have already considered this issue in the light of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 -there is no error in the order of the Tribunal which calls for any interference u/s.254(2) of the Act. MP is without any merit and the same is dismissed. - MP No.155/Bang/2019 (in ITA No.1234/Bang/2019) - - - Dated:- 16-12-2020 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President For the Assessee : Mr.Chaitantya V.Mudrabettu, Advocate on earlier dates and None on 11.12.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 3. On further appeal by the Assessee, the question that came up for consideration in the aforesaid appeal was as to whether a souharda registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 can be regarded as co-operative society entitled to benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The reliance by the Revenue was on the decisions rendered by the ITAT Bangalore Division Bench, in the case of M/s. Millennium Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA Nos. 2606 2607/Bang/2017 in which the Tribunal followed the decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of MS.Udaya Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. ITA No.2831/Bang/2017 order dated 17.8.2018 in which the issue whether souharda registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 can be regarded as cooperative society entitled to benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. 4. The Tribunal considered the issue and concluded the decisions cited by the revenue were cases where the Tribunal found that the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, were not examined by the revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars of the integrated community development. As time passed by, other aspects 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee is held to be incorrect. 6. In this MP it is the contention of the revenue that the Single Member has to follow the decision of the Division Bench and cannot take a contrary view. If the Single Member has any doubts on the view expressed by a Division Bench, the proper course to follow would be to refer the matter for constitution of a larger bench. It is also the contention of the revenue in the MP that misreading a decision of co-ordinate Bench is a mistake apparent from record. It is also the contention in the MP that the Tribunal has arrived at a wrong conclusion on the issue which is also a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Revenue has prayed that the order should be recalled. 7. I have heard the submission of the learned DR, who reiterated the stand of the revenue as contained in the MP. The learned counsel for the Assessee drew my attention to the fact that in the case of Udaya Souhardha Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (Supra), on which the learned DR has placed principal reliance, the Tribunal has in paragraph-8 has specifically observed that the learned DR has raised a few valid points which cannot be outrightly ignored. The tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -operative society entitled to benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. We are of the view that in the present case, the AO and CIT(A) have already considered this issue in the light of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and therefore this issue has to be decided by me and cannot be remanded to the AO as was canvassed by the Revenue. 10. It was thus submitted by him that the Tribunal has found that facts and circumstances of the case were different and since the issue has been dealt with in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, by the revenue authorities, there was no purpose in remanding the issue to the AO and hence decided the case on merits. 11. It was also submitted by him that the decision in the case of Udaya Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) did not consider the provisions of Sec.2(19) of the Act, which were very crucial to a decision on the issue in question. It was therefore submitted by him that there was no view on the issue expressed by the Udaya Souhardha Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., which can be said to be a binding precedent nor were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue authorities because in the case which was subject matter of the appeal, the AO and CIT(A) have already considered this issue in the light of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997. The tribunal therefore held that it has to decide the issue and cannot remand the same to the AO as was canvassed by the Revenue. Therefore the decision rendered in the case of Udaya Souhardha Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) cannot be regarded as a precedent and therefore the other contentions of the revenue in the MP that a Single Member has to follow the decision of the Division Bench and cannot take a contrary view and that if a Single Member has any doubts on the view expressed by a Division Bench, the proper course to follow would be to refer the matter for constitution of a larger bench, is without any merit. The further stand of the revenue in the MP that the Single Member has misread the decision of co-ordinate Bench and hence there is a mistake apparent from record, is also without any merit. I am therefore of the view that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal which calls for any interference u/s.254(2) of the Act. 15. For the reasons given above, I am of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
