Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S. Moorthedara Seva Sahakari Sangha ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Puttur on 7 August, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC-A" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019
Assessment years : 2015-16 and 2016-17
M/s. Moorthedara Seva Sahakari Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Sangha, Ward - 1,
No.1, Lotus Building, Puttur.
Nelyadi, Uppinangaday,
Karnataka - 574 241.
PAN : AABAM 2273 R
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CA
Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. G, Standing Counsel
Date of hearing : 05.08.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2019
ORDER
Per Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the combined orders of CIT(A), Mangaluru, dated 29.03.2019.
2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee are identical in both years and it read as under in Assessment Year 2015-16:-
ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 2.2 The only difference in the grounds raised in the appeal for Assessment year 2016-17 is that the amount is Rs.30,47,020/-.
2.3 Vide letter dated 25.06.2019, the assessee raised Additional Grounds of appeal. However, in the course of appellate hearings, the learned AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing the Additional Grounds of appeal raised for both Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. These Additional Grounds raised are accordingly rendered infructuous and dismissed as not pressed.
ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 6
4. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in both years, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16.06.2017 rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society as reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karn). He submitted that the facts of this case are different and therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. He submitted that in the present case, another judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 230 Taxman 309 is applicable and therefore, the matter should be restored back to AO or CIT (A) for a fresh decision by following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). At this juncture, the bench wanted to know regarding the facts of the present case because the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in both these cases i.e. PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) are on the same line but the conclusion is different because the facts are different. The bench pointed out that in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra), the money deposited in bank was out of liability of the assessee and in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra), the money deposited in bank was not out of liability but out of assessee's own funds and therefore this decision is in favour of the assessee. The bench pointed out that if the facts in the present case are similar to that of the facts in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society (supra) then the issue should be decided against the assessee but if the facts of the assessee are similar to that of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) then the issue is to be decided in favour of the assessee. In reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the facts are not readily available and therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 6 case in the light of these two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR of revenue also agreed to this proposition put forward by the ld. AR of assessee.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and feel it appropriate that the matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision in both Assessment Years after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) and if it is found that the facts of the present case are in line with the facts of the PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) then the issue may be decided against the assessee and if the facts of the present case are in line with the facts of the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) then the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) should pass necessary order as per law in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of August, 2019.
Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (JASON P BOAZ)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore.
Dated: 7th August, 2019.
/NS/*
ITA Nos.1385 and 1386/Bang/2019
Page 6 of 6
Copy to:
1. Appellants 2. Respondent
3. CIT 4. CIT(A)
5. DR 6. Guard file
By order
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Bangalore.