Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312856 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” ा यपीठ चे\u0012ई म\u0015। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI मा ननीय \u0018ी एबी टी. वक , ा ियक सद एवं मा ननीय \u0018ी मनोज क ुमा र अ$वा ल ,लेखा सद क े सम&। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं ./ ITA No.3217/Chny/2024 (िनधा 'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं ./ ITA No.3218/Chny/2024 (िनधा 'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/s Gobichettipalayam Rev Dev VAO & VA T&C Society Ltd. 72, North Park Street Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode – 638452 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Erode \u0002थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACAG-0315-P (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) – Ld. AR थ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29-04-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2020- 21 and 2021-22 have identical facts. First, we take up appeal for AY 2020-21 which arises out of an order passed by Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vishakhapatnam [CIT(A)] on 25-11-2021. The sole issue that arises in the appeal is claim of deduction 2 u/s 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i). Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. In the intimation. CPC denied deduction of Rs.13.48 Lacs as claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d). The Ld. CIT(A), in para 5.2 of the impugned order, considering certain judicial decisions, held that the interest income earned out of investments made with cooperative bank that do not have license under Sec.22 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 falls outside the definition of Banking Company as defined in Sec.5(c) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and therefore, interest income so earned by the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Ld. AO was directed to carry out the necessary verification and allow the impugned deduction. However, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). In para 5.3, it has further been observed that the interest income was to be computed under the head ‘Income from other sources’ and deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) would not be available in respect of interest income earned from cooperative banks. The assessee would be eligible to claim expenses u/s 57 and accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to carry out necessary verifications. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Quite clearly, the directions of Ld. CIT(A) are quite contradictory to each other. It could be seen that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was already allowed by CPC and the same was not subject matter of assessee’s first appeal. Therefore, no such directions could have been issued by Ld. CIT(A) qua deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). These directions stand reversed. 3 4. Secondly, interest income as earned by the assessee from co- operative banks which happens to be registered as cooperative society would be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) provided these entities do not hold the requisite license under Sec.22 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. This is as per various decisions of this Tribunal as kept on record. In the case of M/s Kangayam Primary Cooperative Credit Society (ITA No.869/Chny/2023 dated 11-10-2023), similar deduction has been allowed to the assessee. The Ld. AO is accordingly directed to verify the claim of the assessee that the interest income has been received only from such entities which do not hold the requisite license from RBI. The assessee is directed to supply the requisite information, in this regard. The appeal stands partly allowed. 5. It is admitted position that facts in AY 2021-22 are quite identical. This being so, our adjudication as for AY 2020-21 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this year also. 6. Both the appeals stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 30th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ा ियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :30-04-2025 DS आदेश की Gितिलिप अ$ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Madurai/Chennai/Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF "
AI Insights
The case involves M/s Gobichettipalayam Rev Dev VAO & VA T&C Society Ltd., the appellant, contesting the denial of deductions claimed under sections 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The Income Tax Officer initially denied these deductions, which was partially overturned by the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A)'s decision contained contradictory directions regarding the eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), which were not applicable as the deduction had already been allowed by the CPC and was not a subject of the first appeal. The Tribunal's decision clarified these contradictions and directed further verification regarding the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from specific cooperative banks.
