Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), ... vs Goa Pwd Staff Co-Op. Credit Society ... on 28 March, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 343/PAN/2016
(Asst. Year : 2013 - 14)
Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Goa PWD Staff Co-
Ward 1(2), operative Credit Society Ltd.,
Aayakar Bhawan PWD Building, Altinho,
Plot No.5, EDC Complex Panaji - Goa
Patto Plaza
Panaji - 403 001
PAN No. AABAG 5329 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Raghu K. Pikale, - CA
Department By : Shri Shivendra Gupta - DR
Date of hearing : 28/03/2017.
Date of pronouncement : 28/03/2017.
ORDER
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) Panaji-I in appeal no ITA.No.273/CIT(A)/PNJ-1/15-16 dated 19/09/2016 for the Assessment Year 2013 - 14.
2. Shri Raghu K Pikale, CA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shivendra Gupta represented on behalf of the revenue.
3. At the time of hearing it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues in the appeal being against the action of the Learned CIT(A) in granting the assessee the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble 2 ITA No. 343/PAN/2016 M/s. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative credit society Ltd., jurisdictional High Court of Bombay at Goa in assessee own case in Tax Appeal No. 73 of 2015 wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has allowed as follows:-
7. Taking note of the above observations, it is clearly held therein that unless and until the said three conditions are cumulatively satisfied, the question of holding that such society is a co-operative Bank would not arise at all. In the present cases, it is not disputed that the third condition that the bye laws should not permit admission of any other Co-
operative Society as its member is not at all satisfied. In any event, the fact finding authorities after examining the material on record have concurrently come to the conclusion that the respondents' Societies are not Banks but Cooperative Societies and as such they are entitled for exemption in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the said Act. The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below cannot be interfered by this Court in the present appeals unless there is perversity in such findings. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, not pointed out any material which has not considered or that there is any .misreading of the evidence whilst, coming to such conclusions. The contention of Ms. A. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in view of the definition of the word 'income' as provided in Section 2(24)(viia), the respondents' Societies are to be treated as a Bank cannot be accepted This aspect has also been taken note by the Division Bench while disposing of the said appeals In the case of M/s. The Quepem Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd., (supra ).
8. Taking note of the observations in the said judgment in the case of M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., (Supra) to the effect that merely giving 3 ITA No. 343/PAN/2016 M/s. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative credit society Ltd., credit facilities to the members would not be a Co-operative Bank but continued to be a Co-operative Society and as there is no material on record that the respondents were giving any such credit facilities to the non members, we find that the observations in the said judgment in the case of M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., (supra ) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, as no other contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find that the proposed substantial questions of law to that effect would not survive and does not require any further consideration. For the reasons stated in the said judgment in the case of M/s, The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., (supra ), we find that there is no substantial question of law. which arises in the present appeals for consideration. The appeals stand accordingly rejected.
4. We have considered the submissions. As it is noticed that the issue in the revenue appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay at Goa in the assessee's own case referred (supra). The findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Court at the close of the hearing on Tuesday, the 28th day of March, 2017 at Goa.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.K.BANSAL) (GEORGE MATHAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated :28 t h March, 2017.
vssgb /-
4
ITA No. 343/PAN/2016
M/s. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative credit society Ltd., Copy to:
1. The Assessee.
2. The Revenue.
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A),
5. The D.R.
6. Guard file.
By order Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Panaji