TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the appeal in electronic mode, 4. Only against specific letter from the learned CIT(A) dated 06.09.2017 delivered to the appellant on 28th Sep 2017, once again the appeal was sent in electronic mode on 14th October 2017 5. The Rule 45. Form of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), was substituted vide notification dated lst March 2016 and effective from 1st April 2016. 6. The substituted Rule 45 (2)(b) states that "(b) in a case where the assessee has the option to furnish the return of income in paper form, by furnishing the for electronically in accordance with clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) or in paper form." 7. The ITR form to be used and mode of filing the return is specified in Rule 12 (3) states that: "(3) The return of income referred to in sub-rule (1) may be furnished in any of the following manners, namely:- (i) furnishing the return in a paper form; (ii) furnishing the return electronically under digital signature (iii) transmitting the data in the return electronically and thereafter submitting the verification of the return in Farm ITR-V, (iv) furnishing a bar-coded return in a paper form: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....49, The definition given in Section 56 in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act is as under: (CC-i) : Co-operative Bank means a state co-operative bank, a central cooperative bank and a primary co-operative bank " "(CC-ii): Co-operative credit society means a co-operative society, the primary object of which is to provide financial accommodation to its members and includes a co-operative land mortgage bank. It is clear from the above definition the society is not a bank and the provisions of the section 80P(4) are not applicable to this society. Further, The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in the case of Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot V/s. CIT (Appeal No. 5006/2013) has held that there is a distinction between Co operative society and Co-operative bank and held that deduction u/s. 80 P is allowable to the Co-operative Society. Ground - 2. The Actual Fact is the society has only one class of members i.e., Permanent members who have the power to participate in the election and voting, and Jo not have any nominal members. The fact was reiterated and the relevant details giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income Tax (1998) 5 SCC 48, this Court, while dealing with classes of societies covered by Section 80P of the Act, held as follows: "6. The classes of societies covered by Section 80-P of the Act are as follows: (a) Engaged in business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members; xx xx xx 7. We may notice that the provision is introduced with a view to encouraging and promoting growth of cooperative sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. The correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in the section would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of an income of a cooperative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether income fell within any of the several heads of exemption. If it fell within any one head of exemption, it would be free from tax notwithstanding that the conditions of another head of exemption are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of exemption..." (iii) In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be admissible to a co-operative bank. However, if it is a primary agriculture credit society or a primary co-operative agriculture and rural development bank, the deduction would still be provided. Titus, co-operative banks are now specifically excluded from the ambit of Section 80P of the Act. (vi) Undoubtedly, if one has to go by the aforesaid definition of 'co-operative bank', the appellant does not get covered thereby. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in order to do the business of a co-operative bank, it is imperative to have a licence front the Reserve Bank of India, which the appellant does not possess. Not only this, as noticed above, the Reserve Bank of India has itself clarified that the business of the appellant does not amount to that of a cooperative bank. The appellant, therefore, would not come within the mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 80P. Further it was held in the said Case on the facts that: (vii) So far so good. However, it is significant to point out that the main reason for disentitling the appellant from getting the deduction provided under Section 80P of the Act is not sub-section (4) thereof. What has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest has been earned on such investment for example, ING Mutual Fund [as said by the MD vide his statement dated 20.12.2010]. [Though the bank formed the third party vis-à-vis the assessee entitled between contributor and recipient is lost in such case. The other ingredients of mutuality are also found to be missing as discussed in further paragraphs]. In the present case both the parties to the transaction are the contributors towards surplus, however, there are no participators in the surpluses. There is no common consent of whatsoever for participators as their identity is not established. Hence, the assessee fails to satisfy the test of mutuality at the time of making the payments the number in referred as members may not be the member of the society as such the AOP body by the society is not covered by concept of mutuality at all." (ix) These are the findings of fact which have remained unshaken till the stage of the High Court. Once we keep the aforesaid aspects in mind, the conclusion is obvious, namely, the appellant cannot be treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members. We are afraid such a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reat the appeal filed in paper as valid appeal because when the appeal was filed in paper format on 26.04.2016, e-filing of appeal was not activated and the assessee was advised to file appeal in paper mode and subsequently, the assessee filed the e-appeal also on 14.10.2017 resulting in a delay 570 days in filing e-appeal although paper appeal was filed within the prescribed time. But learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing e-appeal. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, the delay in filing e-appeal should be condoned and the matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. 3. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In view of this fact that the requirement of filing e-appeal was prescribed w.e.f. 01.03.2016 and the assessee was required to file the appeal within 30.04.2016 which the assessee has done by filing the appeal on 26.04.2016 although in paper format and this is the explanation of the assessee that by this time, e-filing of the appeals was not activated. In para 7.1 of his order, it is noted by learned CIT(A) that as per CBDT Circular No. 20/16 d....