2016 (1) TMI 1316 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) denied - whether assessee neither a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) nor a Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural development Bank (PCARDB)? - Held that - It is not in dispute that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical to the earlier years, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches as referred above, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed to 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. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Charging and withdrawal of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, and 244A of the Act.

Issue 1: Eligibility under section 80P(2)(a)(i):
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A)-III, Jaipur, challenging the denial of deduction claimed by the Society under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The appellant contended that the denial was contrary to the law and facts. The issue revolved around whether the assessee qualified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) or a Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (PCARDB) to be eligible for the deduction. The Coordinate Benches of the ITAT had previously ruled in favor of the assessee's eligibility for the deduction in similar cases for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The latest order dated 30.10.2015 confirmed the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the nature of the entity as a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. As the facts were identical to previous cases, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Charging and withdrawal of interest:
The appellant disputed the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, as well as the withdrawal of interest under section 244A of the Act. However, the appellant did not provide specific arguments on this issue. The Tribunal noted that the levy and withdrawal of interest were consequential in nature. Consequently, the ground taken by the assessee challenging the interest charges and withdrawals was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and dismissing the challenge against the interest charges and withdrawals.