9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 833 - AT - Income TaxDeduction allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act Co-operative Bank registered under Co-operative Societies Act - rural branch - Held that - There is no reason to interfere with the finding of CIT (A) - the AO has not examined the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) completely neither explanation added to it which was considered by CIT (A) the assessee falls under section 5C of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 is a non-scheduled bank - assessee is a non-scheduled bank then as per provisions, deduction has to be allowed - The AO himself has allowed 75% of the deduction - he disallowed 10% further deduction which was allowable to the non-scheduled bank and scheduled bank - The assessee operated through rural branch which is a branch of scheduled bank or non-scheduled bank situated in a place which has a population of 10,000 which is not in dispute - The CIT (A) has ascertained the calculation of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the advances given by its rural branch in Jamwa Ramgarh Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act for a Co-operative Bank. 2. Interpretation of the term "rural branch" in the context of section 36(1)(viia). 3. Applicability of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to Co-operative Banks. 4. Legislative intent behind amendments affecting Co-operative Banks. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act for a Co-operative Bank: The primary issue is whether a Co-operative Bank is entitled to a deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. The department objected to the deduction of Rs. 58,81,000/- claimed by the assessee, a Co-operative Bank, under this section. The AO disallowed the deduction, asserting that Co-operative Banks are not entitled to this benefit. However, the CIT (A) allowed the deduction, stating that the assessee falls under the definition of a non-scheduled bank as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and thus qualifies for the deduction. 2. Interpretation of the term "rural branch" in the context of section 36(1)(viia): The AO's interpretation excluded Co-operative Banks from the definition of "rural branch," which is defined as a branch of a scheduled or non-scheduled bank situated in a place with a population of not more than 10,000. The CIT (A) countered this by highlighting that the main section 36(1)(viia) provides for such deductions to Co-operative Banks, and the exclusion in the explanation cannot override this provision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s view, noting that the AO did not provide a rationale for his decision and failed to consider the complete provisions of section 36(1)(viia). 3. Applicability of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to Co-operative Banks: The CIT (A) referenced the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, particularly section 5(c), which includes Co-operative Banks under the definition of a banking company. This classification supports the assessee's claim for the deduction. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO did not fully examine the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, which clearly categorize the assessee as a non-scheduled bank eligible for the deduction. 4. Legislative intent behind amendments affecting Co-operative Banks: The judgment extensively discussed the legislative intent behind the amendments to section 36(1)(viia) and section 80P, which withdrew certain tax benefits from Co-operative Banks to align their tax treatment with other commercial banks. The Finance Minister's budget speech and the memorandum explaining the Finance Bill 2007 were cited to demonstrate that the legislature intended to allow Co-operative Banks the same deductions for provisions for bad and doubtful debts as other banks. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's interpretation would defeat this legislative intent. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the deduction of Rs. 58,81,000/- under section 36(1)(viia) to the Co-operative Bank. The AO's disallowance was based on an incomplete interpretation of the relevant provisions and legislative intent. The appeal by the department was dismissed, upholding the CIT (A)'s findings that the assessee is entitled to the deduction as a non-scheduled bank operating through a rural branch. Result: The appeal of the department is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on March 7, 2012.
|
