9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 317 - HC - Income TaxClaiming deduction under Section 80 P(2) (a) (i) - Whether the benefit of deduction, under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, could be denied to the assessee on the footing that, though the appellant was said to be a Co-operative Society, it was in fact a co-operative bank, within the meaning as assigned to such bank under Part V of the BR Act? - Held that - There is a seriously disputed question of fact which the Authorities under the IT Act have taken upon themselves to interpret in the face of the BR Act prescribing that in the event of a dispute as to the primary object or principal business of any co-operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi) of Section 56 of the BR Act, a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final, would require the dispute to be resolved by the Reserve Bank of India, before the authorities could term the assessee as a co-operative bank, for purposes of Section 80P of the IT Act. Any opinion expressed therefore is tentative and is not final. The view expressed by this court, however, as to the assessee being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank in terms of Section 80P(4) of the IT Act, shall hold the field and shall bind the authorities unless held otherwise by the Reserve Bank of India. - Decided in favour of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act could be denied to the assessee on the grounds that it was a co-operative bank as defined under Part V of the BR Act. 2. Whether the Authorities under the IT Act were competent to determine if the assessee was a co-operative society or a co-operative bank as defined under the BR Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) The primary issue was whether the assessee, a co-operative society, could be denied the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act on the grounds that it was considered a co-operative bank under Part V of the BR Act. The court referred to multiple precedents, particularly the decisions in CIT v. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha and CIT v. Bangalore Commercial Transporter Credit Society. These cases established that if a co-operative society is not exclusively carrying on banking business and does not possess a license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to carry on banking business, it is not a co-operative bank but a co-operative society eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The court reiterated that the legislative intent behind Section 80P(4) was to exclude co-operative banks carrying on banking business from availing the deduction, but not to deny the benefit to co-operative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to their members. The court also noted that the Tribunal had erred in ignoring these precedents and not distinguishing the decisions or referring the matter to a special bench. Issue 2: Competence of Authorities under the IT Act The second issue was whether the authorities under the IT Act had the jurisdiction to determine whether the assessee was a co-operative society or a co-operative bank. The court highlighted the Explanation appended to clause (ccvi) to Section 56 of the BR Act, which states that any dispute regarding the primary object or principal business of a co-operative society shall be determined by the Reserve Bank of India, and such determination shall be final. The court observed that the authorities under the IT Act had overstepped their jurisdiction by making determinations that should have been referred to the RBI. The court emphasized that the determination by the RBI would be binding, and any opinion expressed by the authorities under the IT Act was tentative and not final. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessee, being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank as per the established judicial precedents and the BR Act, was entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee, and the authorities were directed to abide by the determination of the RBI regarding the status of the assessee. The judgment underscored the necessity for the authorities to respect the jurisdictional boundaries set by the BR Act and the IT Act.
|
