9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1236 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) denied - reasons for denying the benefit of deduction was that the assessee were doing the business of banking - Held that - Identical issue was considered in the case of ITO v. The Chengala Service Co-operative Bank Limited 2018 (4) TMI 339 - ITAT COCHIN wherein after considering the judicial pronouncements, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2) hen a primary agricultural credit Society is registered as such under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, such society is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act. Assessing Officer was not competent and did not possess the jurisdiction to resolve / decide the issue as to whether the assessee was a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Co-operative bank , within the meaning assigned to it under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and to take a contrary view especially in view of the Explanation provided after the clause (ccvi) of section 5 r.w.s Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of primary agricultural credit societies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of The Citizens Co-Operative Society Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Interpretation of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, regarding the classification and activities of primary agricultural credit societies. 4. Distinction between de jure and de facto positions of cooperative societies. 5. Whether nominal members can be considered as actual members for the purpose of tax exemption. 6. Competence of the Assessing Officer in determining the nature of cooperative societies under the Banking Regulation Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies for Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i): The assessees, being primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, filed returns claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this deduction, arguing that the assessees were engaged in the business of banking, thus falling under section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) overturned the AO's decision, referencing the Kerala High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others, which affirmed that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessees' classification as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act entitles them to the deduction. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in The Citizens Co-Operative Society Limited Case: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Kerala High Court's decision was misplaced in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in The Citizens Co-Operative Society Limited case. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court case, noting that the latter involved a cooperative society operating beyond its approved framework and engaging with non-members. The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's decision was specific to the facts of that case and did not apply to primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 3. Interpretation of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969: The Tribunal reiterated that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2), as confirmed by the Kerala High Court. The Tribunal noted that the assessees' classification as primary agricultural credit societies by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was sufficient to grant them the deduction, without further probing into their activities. 4. Distinction Between De Jure and De Facto Positions of Cooperative Societies: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to differentiate between the de jure (legal) and de facto (actual) positions of the cooperative societies, suggesting that the principle of penetration of the corporate veil should be applied to determine the true nature of the societies' activities. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the classification by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was determinative. 5. Whether Nominal Members Can Be Considered as Actual Members: The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument regarding nominal members, noting that under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, nominal members are considered members. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observation in U.P. Cooperative Cane Union v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which stated that the term "members" should be construed in the context of the relevant state law. The Tribunal concluded that deposits from nominal members cannot be treated as deposits from the public, thus affirming the assessees' eligibility for the deduction. 6. Competence of the Assessing Officer in Determining the Nature of Cooperative Societies: The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to determine whether the assessees were primary agricultural credit societies or cooperative banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal noted that the Reserve Bank of India, the competent authority under the Banking Regulation Act, classified the assessees as primary agricultural credit societies, exempting them from the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act to the assessees. The Tribunal concluded that the primary agricultural credit societies, as classified under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the deduction, and the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-Operative Society Limited case does not apply to the present facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is determinative, and nominal members are considered members under the relevant state law.
|
