The Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Panaji v. M/S. Our Lady Of Milagres Urbanco-Operative Credit Society Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2017 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, PANAJI. ... Appellant Versus M/S. OUR LADY OF MILAGRES URBANCO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ... Respondent Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Advocate for the respondent. -Coram: F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 3rd May, 2017 ORAL ORDER( Per F. M. Reis, J ) Heard Ms. A. Razaq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The challenge in the above appeal is to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the respondent/assessee has beengiven benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that both theauthorities have failed to consider that the respondent were notentitled for such benefit as according the appellant the respondentare carrying banking business. The learned counsel further pointsout that merely because the respondents giveloans only to themembers by itself does not mean that the respondent are notcarrying out banking business. The learned counsel thereafter hastaken us through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal topoint out that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appealpreferred by the appellant. 3. On the other hand, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned counselappearing for the respondent has pointed out that the issue as raisedby the appellant is no longer res integra in view of the judgmentpassed by this Court dated 01.12.2015 in Tax Appeal No. 73 of2015 in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s the Goa PWD Staff Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. The learned counsel further points out that it has been clearly held in the saidjudgment that merely giving some advances to the members wouldnot mean that the respondent/assessee are carrying out bankingbusiness in terms of the Banking Regulation Act. The learnedcounsel submits that the respondent are not qualified to be a Co-operative Bank. The learned counsel as such submits that the appealbe accordingly dismissed. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and we have also gone through the records. In the saidjudgment in the case of the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax ( supra ), this Court has observed at para 8 thus : “8. Taking note of the observations in the said judgment in the case of M/s. TheQuepem Urban Co-operative Credit SocietyLtd., ( supra ) to the effect that merely givingcredit facilities to the members would not be aCo-operative Bank but continued to be a Co-operative Society and as there is no material on record that the respondents were giving anysuch credit facilities to the non members, wefind that the observations in the said judgmentin the case of M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., ( supra )would be squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case. As such, as no othercontentions have been raised by the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant, we findthat the proposed substantial questions of lawto that effect would not survive and does notrequire any further consideration. For thereasons stated in the said judgment in the caseof M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operativeCredit Society Ltd., ( supra ), we find thatthere is no substantial question of law whicharises in the present appeals for consideration.The appeals stand accordingly rejected. 5. Looking into the factual findings of the learned Tribunalas the respondent are not carrying out banking business as definedin the Banking Regulation Act, the question of refusing benefits tothe respondent in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income TaxAct would not arise at all. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, we find that there is no substantial question of law which 5. Looking into the factual findings of the learned Tribunalas the respondent are not carrying out banking business as definedin the Banking Regulation Act, the question of refusing benefits tothe respondent in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income TaxAct would not arise at all. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, we find that there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the above appeal. The appeal standsaccordingly rejected. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*