9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri George George K, JM For The Appellant : Smt. Bindhu A.S., Sr. DR For The Respondent : None ORDER Per Bench These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the combined order of the CIT(A) dated 05.10.2017. The relevant assessment years are 2007-2008 , 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee in this case is primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee was providing credit facilities to its members. The returns of income were filed by the assessee claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The assessments were completed by denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The reasons for denying the benefit of deduction was that the assessee was doing the business of banking, and therefore, in view of insertion of provisions of section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act, the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeals bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meant only for its members and providing credit facilities only to its members. 4. The Honourable Supreme Court: had in the case of The Citizen Co-Operative Society limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 9(1), Hyderabad observed that the depositors and borrowers in the appellant cooperative society are distinct and therefore, in reality, the activities of the appellant are that of a finance business and cannot be termed as those of a co-operative society. The facts in the present case also fall within the same contextual fabric. The categories of resident members, ordinary members and nominal members exist. This invokes the question of whether the assessee is merely providing agricultural credit to its members thereby validating the claim of tax exemption u/s 80P(4) or performing activities beyond its approved framework that enables disallowance of such claim. In view of this, is not the decision of the CIT(A) without merits? 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have seen that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd Vs CIT reported in 203 ITR 1027 (SC) had held that the eligible deduction under Section SOP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. The Tribunal after considering the judicial pronouncements, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited Ors. (supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessees in these cases are primary agricultural credit societies, registered as such under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited Ors. (supra) had categorically held in para 17 page 14 of the judgment that when 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. The Hon'ble High Court was considering the following substantial question of law: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case under consideration/ the Tribunal is correct in law in deciding again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials on record that the bye-laws of each of the appellants do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as member, except may be, in accordance with the proviso to sub-clause 2 of section 5(cciv) of the BR Act. The different orders of the Tribunal which are impeached in these appeals do not contain any finding of fact to the effect that the bye- laws of any of the appellant or its classification by the competent authority under the KCS Act is anything different from what we have stated herein above. For this reason, it cannot but be held that the appellants are entitled to exemption from the provisions of section 8OP of the IT Act by virtue of sub-section 4 of that sect; on. In this view of the matter, the appeals succeed. 17. In the light of the aforesaid, we answer substantial question: A in favour of the appellants and hold that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding the issue regarding the entitlement of exemption under section 80P against the appellants. We hold that the primary agricultural credit societies, registered as such under the KCS Act; and classified so, under that Act including the appellants are entitled to such exemption. 7.2 In the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. Thereafter as the operations of the assessee had increased manifold and were spread over states of Erstwhile, Andhra Pradesh, Mahrashtra and Karnataka, the assessee-society got itself registered on 26.07.2005 under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MACSA) 8.2 The Hon ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case specifically took note of the factual findings of the Assessing Officer (which was stated in para 15 of the judgment) referring to the bye laws and the provisions of Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee therein cannot admit nominal members and most of the deposits were taken from such category of person (as they were not members as per the provisions referred). The Apex Court in para 25 of the Judgment has pointed out that the main reason for disentitling the assessee from getting the deduction provided under section 80P of the Act is not sub-section (4) of the Act. On the contrary, the Hon ble Apex Court held that the Credit Co-operative Society was not entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Act for the reason of categorical finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.6 In this context, it is relevant to mention that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Cooperative Cane Union v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 237 ITR 574 (SC)-para 8 of the judgment has observed as under:- 8. The expression members is not defined in the Act. Since a co-operative society has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State Legislature in that regard, the expression members in section 80P(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of the provisions of the law enacted by the State Legislature under which the cooperative society claiming exemption, has been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression members in Section80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that expression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Co-operative Societies Act. 8.7 The Bombay High Court in Jalgaon District Central v. UOI (2004) 265 ITR 423 (Bom) in the light of the above Supreme Court judgment had held that nominal member is also member under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and entitled for benefits under section 80P. [Para 17 to 20 of the judgment], as under:- 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation Act specifically provides that if any dispute arises as to the primary object or principal business of any co-operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi), a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final. The Reserve Bank of India, which is the competent authority as per the Banking Regulation Act, treats assessee society and similar societies as only Primary Agricultural Credit Society not falling within the ambit of Banking Regulation Act. The Reserve Bank of India has given letters to the societies similar to assessee stating that they are Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and therefore in terms of section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act are not entitled for banking license; (Copies of such letter from RBI are placed on record). 8.9 That being the case, the 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 'Cooperative 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
