Y The Benefit Claimed Under Section 80P(2)(A) (I)?_ v. Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahekear Sangha Niyamitha_(Supra). Hence, This Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF JANUARY, 2016PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR I.T.A.No.1001/8/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BELAGAVI. ? THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO.1, GOKAK. _ APPELLANTS (BY SHRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND" M/S.DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVECREDIT SOCIETY LTD., SANKESHWAR,TAL: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI,PAN:AAAAS 5617 D. RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR AND SMT.PATRI SHASHIKALA K. ADVS) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.260A OF THE INCOME-TAXACT,1961,|PRAYING TO]FORMULATE.THE|SUBSTANTIALQUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE, TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI, IN ITA NO.82/PNIJ/2015DTD:29.0/7.7015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BELAGAVI, IN THE INTERESTOF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri H.R. Kambiyavar, learned Counsel acceptsnotice for the respondent. 2.Revenue, aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2015passed in I.T.A.No.25/PNJ/2015, by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, (CITAT’ forshort) has presented this appeal by raising the followingquestions of law: 1.Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on thefacts and circumstances of the case in notappreciating that the respondent assessee societybeing a credit co-operative society engaged inbanking business is a Primary Co-operative Bankwithin the definition of Section 5(cci) read withsection 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act,1949?facts and circumstances of the case in notappreciating that the respondent assessee societybeing a credit co-operative society engaged inbanking business is a Primary Co-operative Bankwithin the definition of Section 5(cci) read withsection 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act,1949? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in law and onfacts in not appreciating the fact that the assesseebeing a co-operative society fulfills all the threeconditions of being held a primary Co-OperativeBank as given in section 5 (ccv) of the BankingRegulation Act, 1949 and as such section 80P(4)of the Act is applicable to deny the benefitclaimed under Section 80P(2)(a) (i)?facts in not appreciating the fact that the assesseebeing a co-operative society fulfills all the threeconditions of being held a primary Co-OperativeBank as given in section 5 (ccv) of the BankingRegulation Act, 1949 and as such section 80P(4)of the Act is applicable to deny the benefitclaimed under Section 80P(2)(a) (i)? 3.Whether the Tribunal was right in law and onfacts relying upon the decision of Hon’bleKarnataka High Court in the case of Sri. BiluruGurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha,Bagalkot wherein, the main issue related to anissue of exercise of revisional powers by theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 263of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court did notexamine the applicability of Section 80P(4) andExplanation to the said section?facts relying upon the decision of Hon’bleKarnataka High Court in the case of Sri. BiluruGurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha,Bagalkot wherein, the main issue related to anissue of exercise of revisional powers by theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 263of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court did notexamine the applicability of Section 80P(4) andExplanation to the said section? ,��5/-7��-.���%��/3.-/A��45/-657��</67.6?���86954�=�-<>5��6:�05��/@��5;/-<056<�/67��-.������/01.2/3/-�45/-657�:�86954�=�-�<>5�-59;�6756<� F��>5�.6:�6<-�35-<.145�=/:<9��=�<>.9�:/95�/-5�-59;�6756<�.9�/���)�;5-/<.35���:.5<2�;-.0/-.42�:/--2.6?�6�D.<>�<>5�189.6599��=�4567.6?�0�652�<��.<9�05015-9� ,��5/-7��-.���%��/3.-/A��45/-657��</67.6?���86954�=�-<>5��6:�05��/@��5;/-<056<�/67��-.������/01.2/3/-�45/-657�:�86954�=�-�<>5�-59;�6756<� F��>5�.6:�6<-�35-<.145�=/:<9��=�<>.9�:/95�/-5�-59;�6756<�.9�/���)�;5-/<.35���:.5<2�;-.0/-.42�:/--2.6?�6�D.<>�<>5�189.6599��=�4567.6?�0�652�<��.<9�05015-9� For.theassessment.Year2011-2012,respondentclaimed benefit under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of theIncome Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’). The AssessingAuthority denied the said benefit. On appeal, theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), allowed theSame vide order dated 24.11.2014 following thejudgment of this Court dated 5.2.2014 in the case of theCIT sVBiluru. Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari SanghNiyamitha,BagalkotInI.T.A.No.5006/2013.Beingaggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals),Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT. By theimpugned order, the ITAT dismissed the said appeal byfollowing the very same judgment of this Court in thecase ofCIT v. Biluru Gurubasava Pattina SahekearSangha Niyamitha_(supra). Hence, this appeal. 5.An identical case involving the very respondentherein came up for consideration before this Court inI.T.A.No.100080/2014 (CIT Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi UrbanCo-operate Credit Society Ltd.) After considering the aforementioned decision of this Court In-CIT v.BiluruGurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha WNiyamitha/67noticing that similar view was taken by this Court invarious other decisions mentioned therein, the questionsof law raised by the Revenue in the said appeal wereanswered in favour of the assessee by order dated21.09.2015, by holding thus: “10. We are in respectful agreement with thegeneral view taken as to the interpretation of therelevant provisions of law, by the co-ordinate bench ofthis court, in the above and several other judgmentsadopting the same view. However, it is to be noticedthat there is a seriously disputed question of fact whichthe Authorities under the IT Act have taken uponthemselves to interpret in the face of the BR Actprescribing that in the event of a dispute as to theprimary object or principal business of any co-operativesociety referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi) ofSection 56 of the BR Act, a determination thereof by theReserve Bank shall be final, would require the dispute tobe resolved by the Reserve Bank of India, before theauthorities could term the assessee as a co-operativebank, for purposes of Section 80 P of the IT Act. Anyopinion expressed therefore is tentative and is not final. The view expressed by this court, however, as to theassessee being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank in terms of Section 80P (4) of the IT Act,shall hold the field and shall bind the authorities unlessheld otherwise by the Reserve Bank of India. In the result, the above questions are answered infavour of the assessee and the present appeal of therevenue is dismissed.” 6.In the instant case also, the question that falls forconsideration is as to: ~Whether the Revenue has satisfactorilyproved that the respondent-assessee may beconstrued as a Co-operative Bank, havingfulfilled all the requirements contained indefinition clause of Section 5(cci) read withSection 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act,1949 which would disentitle the asessee thebenefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i)?” J.Having considered various previous judgments andthe decision in the case of.CIT v. Biluru GurubasavaPattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha(Supra) in extenso,this|CourthasdisposedoftheaforementionedITA No.100080/2014(CIT & another vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Society LimitedIn the aboveterms. The issues involved in this appeal are identical tothe issues in ITA No.100080/2014. We are in respectfulagreement with the decision of this Court in the saidappeal and do not find any merit in the questions of lawraised by the Revenue for consideration. Accordingly,|we hold that this appeal deserved to be dismissed. J.Having considered various previous judgments andthe decision in the case of.CIT v. Biluru GurubasavaPattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha(Supra) in extenso,this|CourthasdisposedoftheaforementionedITA No.100080/2014(CIT & another vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Society LimitedIn the aboveterms. The issues involved in this appeal are identical tothe issues in ITA No.100080/2014. We are in respectfulagreement with the decision of this Court in the saidappeal and do not find any merit in the questions of lawraised by the Revenue for consideration. Accordingly,|we hold that this appeal deserved to be dismissed. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for theRevenue submitted that the issue involved in this appealhas been taken up in a Special Leave Petition and theSame iS pending adjudication before the Hon’ble ApexCourt. On this premise, he prays for liberty to revivethis appeal in the event of the Revenue succeeding inthe appeal/s filed before the Apex Court. 9. After hearing both parties, we have held that thisappeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected byfollowing the decision of this Court in ITA 100080/2014.Therefore, inthe event, Revenue succeeds in the SLPs filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the partiesherein shall be bound by the decision of the Apex Court.Hence, the request for liberty is misconceived andaccordingly rejected. 10.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.However, it is made clear that the parties herein shallbound by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in theSLPs said to have been filed by the Revenue. No costs. Sri H.R.Kambiyavar, learned counsel is permittedto file vakalath within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/-JUDGE Jm/- Sd/-JUDGE