TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Faceless Appeal Centre is against the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the status of the assessee is 'Co-operative Society. The CIT(A) ought to have noted that as per Chapter III of Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, the direction and management of the affairs and business of a Regional Rural Bank shall vest in a Board of Directors who may exercise all the powers and discharge all the functions which may be exercised or discharged by the Regional Rural Bank and hence the status of the assessee is a corporate entity. 3. Further, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that Section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1st April 2007 introducing sub-section (4), which laid down specifically that the provisions of section 80P will not apply to any Co-operative bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Further, Circular No.6 dated: 29.09.2010 issued by CBDT clarified that Regional Rural Banks (RRB) are basically corporate entities (and not Co-operative societies) they are not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of I.T. Act from the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return of income filed by the assessee entity, more especially with regard to the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act for the purpose of forming of an opinion to believe income has escaped assessment was neither fresh nor tangible and ought to have appreciated that having disclosed said transaction duly in the financial statements filed by the assessee in the return of income, there could not be any scope for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the presumption of escapement of income within the scope of Section 147 of the Act was wrong and incorrect and ought to have appreciated that the provisions in Section 147 of the Act was completely misread and misapplied for the erroneous sustenance of wrong assumption of jurisdiction by the appellant to pass re-assessment order. 7. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer having not recorded cogent belief / suggestion of escapement of income by the Respondent, the consequential invocation of provisions in Section 147 of the Act should be reckoned as bad in law. 8. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that mechanical app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee / cross objector is governed by the provisions of The Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and hence, the attempt to treat the assessee /cross objector as a co-operative bank for the purpose of denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act was wrong. 8. In this context, the ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the RRB Act, 1976 and wherein it is stated as follows: 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a co-operative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the purpose of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to any tax on income, profits or gains, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a co-operative society. 9. Moreover, the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act would override any other Act if it is inconsistent with the provisions of RRB Act and the relevant portion of Section 32 is extracted below: 32. Art to override the provisions of other laws. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by referring to the return of income filed by the assessee, especially with regard to the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and in this regard, the ld.AR submitted that from the reasons recorded, it is evident that the above information emanating from the return of income filed by the assessee is neither fresh nor tangible and therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated in the absence of any new fresh and tangible material does not survive. 15. The ld.AR submitted that the above stand of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Tenzing Match Works reported in 419 ITR 338 and wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as follows: "The legal principle laid down in the above decision is that the language employed in section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under section 143(3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and therefore it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the word 'reason to believe' vis-à-vis section 143(1) and section 143(3). In the instant case it is not in dispute that the reopening is based upon the return of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest paid to the assessee-respondent is compensation on account of deprivation of the use of money." 20. In such circumstances, the ld.AR pleaded for granting the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act with respect to the interest received on tax refund by allowing the grounds raised by the assessee. 21. Further, with respect to the claim of interest quantified u/s. 244A of the Act, the assessee /Cross Objector had objected to the quantification adopted by the assessing officer and in this regard, the ld.AR submitted that the interest u/s. 244A of the Act ought to have been calculated from the date of remittance of TDS till the date of credit of refund. 22. The ld.AR prayed for giving appropriate directions to the AO to grant interest u/s. 244A of the Act from the date of remittance of TDS till the date of credit of refund in the interest of justice. 23. On the cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ld.AR prayed for dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and further pleaded for allowing the grounds raised in the cross-objection filed in the interest of justice. 24. The ld.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/Mds/2015 2011-12 18.03.2016 116-120 2319 & 2320/Mds/2016 2012-13 & 2013- 14 30.11.2016 121-128 3073/Chny/2017 2014-15 24.05.2018 129-134 29. In the latest decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15 has allowed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by holding as under: 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through orders of authorities below and also perused the copies of earlier orders of the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that for the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act vide his order dated 19.03.2009. By order dated 28.10.2009, the ld. CIT passed order under section 263 of the Act quashing the assessment order on the ground that in view of introducing sub-section (4) to section 80P of the Act as per Finance Act, 2006 that the provisions of section 80P of the Act will not apply to any Co-operative Bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, the deduction allowed to the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 dated 30.11.2016]. 6.2 For the assessment years under consideration, by following the decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 572 & 595/Mds/2014 for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2010-11 dated 25.08.2014 as well as I.T.A. No. 1831/Mds/2015 dated 18.03.2016, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The ld.DR could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal or filed any higher Court decision having modified or reversed the findings of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the above decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 30. Further, in the absence of any contrary jurisdictional High Court decision, and in light of consistent past decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, no contrary view is warranted. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee's claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thus, ....