2018 (4) TMI 1863 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Procedural Defects and Denial of Deduction under Section 80P(4)

M/s. Samrudha Souhardha Credit Co-operative Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (2) (4), Bangalore.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal due to procedural defects and upheld the denial of the deduction under Section 80P(4) based on the Assessing ... Ex-parte appeal - Non prosecution of appeal by assessee - non removal of defects - HELD THAT:- This appeal was fixed for hearing on 12.04.2018 and notice of hearing was sent to assessee’s address provided by assessee in form no. 36 and hence, the service of notice is presumed. In spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing i.e. 12.04.2018 and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. This is also noted that along with the notice for hearing, defect memo was also issued to the assessee as per which it was pointed out that there are several defects being a. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300 b. Assessment order is not legible c. Form 35 not filed in duplicate The assessee has not removed these defects also. Under these facts, hold that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable and by respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Issues:1. Denial of deduction under Section 80P (4)2. Interpretation of Section 80P (4) and 80P (1)(a)3. Consideration of Supreme Court judgment4. Consideration of Karnataka High Court judgment5. Maintainability of the appealAnalysis:1. The appellant contested the denial of deduction under Section 80P (4) by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 80P do not apply to cooperative banks, as they are registered under the Societies Act and not governed by the Banking Regulation Act. The appellant specifically pleaded for the deduction under Section 80P(1)(a), emphasizing that they are distinct from cooperative banks.2. The appellant further challenged the interpretation of Section 80P (4) by the Assessing Officer, asserting that the denial of the deduction was unjustified. The appellant highlighted that they operate by accepting deposits and providing loans exclusively to their members, distinguishing their activities from those of cooperative banks. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer misinterpreted the law in this regard.3. The appellant referenced a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd, where it was held that the denial of benefits under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was based on specific criteria that did not apply to the appellant's situation. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court's ruling in that case was not applicable to their circumstances, as they catered solely to their members in terms of deposits and loans.4. The appellant also cited a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sri Bilure Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, emphasizing that the decision of the High Court was binding. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the implications of the High Court's judgment, which supported their claim for the deduction under Section 80P(1)(a).5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to address the defects highlighted in the notice for hearing, such as the non-filing of appeal fee, illegible assessment order, and missing duplicate Form 35. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal as not maintainable. Citing precedent from the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal due to these procedural shortcomings.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal due to procedural defects and upheld the denial of the deduction under Section 80P (4) based on the Assessing Officer's interpretation. The Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the Supreme Court and High Court judgments, as well as the distinction between their operations and those of cooperative banks.