M/s RAHEJA EXCELSIOR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3337/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P. KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80P; 2(19)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI , ! BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 3337 / / 2019 (%. .2015-16 ) ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) M/S. RAHEJA EXCELSIOR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., C.S. NO.1/404, RAHEJA RAHEJA EXCELSIOR, TARDEO DIV., 63, TARDEO ROAD, TARDEO, MUMBAI 400 034. PAN: AABAR9580J / VS. : / APPELLANT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(3)(1), MATRU MANDIR, ROOM NO.202, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 : / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS KAVITA P. KAUSHIK / DATE OF HEARING : 17/09/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2020 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI ( IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 27/02/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY. DURING THE PERIOD REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER 2 ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) APPEAL THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 10,13,129/- FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND FIXED DEPOSITS WITH CO-OPERATIVE BAN KS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 80P (2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT AFTER INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) TO SECTION 80P, THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22/12/2012 PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY PL ACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGAR S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY REPORTED AS 395 ITR 611. HENCE, THE PRESENT APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. MS. KAVITA P. KAUSHIK, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION(4) TO SECTION 80P THE CO-OPERATIVE B ANKS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME FROM INVEST MENT WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS AND HENCE SUCH INTEREST INCOME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT . 4. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE CONSIDERED AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EXAMINED. WHETHER I NTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM DEPOSITS WITH CO-OPERATIVE B ANKS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT OR NOT IS STILL A SUBJECT OF DEBATE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO-OP S OCIETY LTD. VS. ITO, 94 TAXMANN.COM 15 (MUMBAI) AFTER EXAMINING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY, 392 ITR 74 HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME DERIV ED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM 3 ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) INVESTMENTS WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, WOULD BE ENTI TLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE O RDER READS AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UND ER CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY HEREIN REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D), AS THE SA ME WOULD HAVE A STRONG BEARING ON THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US: '80P(2)(D) (1) WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUM SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY : (A) TO (C)** (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME; THUS, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SEC. 80P(2)(D ) IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSESSEE CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY , SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE , THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETY WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE THOUGH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERV ATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT WITH THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P, VIDE THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P WOULD N O MORE BE APPLICABLE IN RELATION TO ANY CO-OPERATIVE BANK, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICUL TURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUT HOWEVER, ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VIEW THAT THE SAME SHALL ALSO JEOPARDISE TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTE REST INCOME ON THEIR INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFU L CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS LONG AS I T IS PROVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS BEING DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS IN VESTMENTS MADE WITH ANY OTHER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D) WOULD BE DULY AVAILABLE. WE MAY HEREIN OB SERVE THAT THE TERM 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY' HAD BEEN DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2(19) OF THE A CT, AS UNDER: '(19) 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY' MEANS A COOPERATIVE S OCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETIES;' 4 ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, THAT THOUGH THE COOPE RATIVE BANK PURSUANT TO THE INSERTION OF SUBSECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WOULD NO MO RE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT, BUT HOWEVER, AS A CO-OPE RATIVE BANK CONTINUES TO BE A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING ENFORCED IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INC OME DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 8. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S THAT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE THAT A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD BE ENTI TLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) FOR THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FO LLOWING CASES: (I) LAND AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (SUPR A) (II) SEA GREEN COOPERATIVE HOUSING AND SOCIETY LTD . (SUPRA) (III) MARWANJEE CAMA PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIET Y LTD. (SUPRA). WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUPRA), HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE INTER EST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14, DATED 28.12.2006, AS HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R, ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT, THAT THE PURPOSE BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SUB- SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WAS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH ARE FUNCT IONING AT PAR WITH OTHER BANKS WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE C. 80P(4) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT (A) ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE S ALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, HAD WRONGLY BEEN RE LIED UPON BY HIM. THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS IN CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I), AND NOT ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TOWARD S DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACE BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY (SUPRA) IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE BANK TOWARD S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IT WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CARRYING OUT A CONJOINT READING O F SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) R.W. SEC. 80P(4) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE BEFORE THEM. WE ARE AFRAID THA T THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING DISTIN GUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, WOULD BE OF NO ASSISTANCE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. STILL FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT 'SMC' BENCH, M UMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAI DATTA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA), WOULD ALSO NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE, FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SAID MATTER THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE 5 ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THAT AS RE GARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA KA IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA), THE HIGH COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S EC. 80P(2)(D). WE HOWEVER FIND THAT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF K. SUBRAMANIAN V. SIEMENS INDIA LTD. [1983] 15 TAXMAN 594/[1985] 156 ITR 11 ( BOM), WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT'S, THEN A VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAK EN AGAINST HIM. THUS, TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND HON'B LE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSE RVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WI TH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT.' [EMPHASIZED BY US] 5. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. TOTAGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 392 ITR 74 HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SURAT VANKAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. VS. ACIT 421 ITR 134. 6. HOWEVER, ON THE SAME ISSUE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 395 ITR 611 HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW HOLDING THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM DEPOSIT WITH THE C OOPERATIVE BANK DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. I T WOULD BE RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE RENDERING TH E LATER JUDGEMENT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EARLIER DECISION RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA). 7. NO JUDGEMENT FROM HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT ON THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ON INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM A COOPERATIVE BANK HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. SUBRAMA NIAN VS. SIEMENS INDIA LTD. 156 ITR 11 HAS HELD THAT WHEN TWO CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS 6 ITA NO. 3337/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) ARE AVAILABLE, THE VIEW THAT FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE I S TO BE PREFERRED. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANKAR SAHAKARI SANGH (SUPRA) THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IN RESP ECT INTEREST DERIVED FROM INVESTMENTS WITH THE COOPERATIVE BANKS IS ALLOWED. I FIND MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER I S SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY THE 24 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, (%/ DATED: 24/11/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ) / THE APPELLANT , 2. *+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ,+ ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. ,+ CIT 5. -.*+% , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ./012 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI