Swami Vivekanand Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi V. ITO, ward - 1, Gokak

ITA 67/PAN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0677 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SHRIKANTH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.67/PAN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Swami Vivekanand Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Beniwad, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi PIN - 591309 PAN AAEAS3563K Karnataka. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak – 591 307 Dist. Belagavi Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri N Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”) Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/ 2023-24/1060982394(1), dated 15.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 ITA No.67/PAN./2024 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “The order of the Hon’ble NFAC is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Hon’ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant being Credit Co-operative Society providing credit facility to its members is entitled to deduction in respect of interest earned on the surplus funds deposited in Co-operative Banks/Scheduled Banks u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. The Hon’ble NFAC ought to have appreciated that the interest earned from bank deposits is also from business qualifying for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. The Hon’ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the interest earned from the surplus amount deposited in the Banks /Co-operative Society is attributable to the Appellant’s business qualifying for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice the Hon’ble NFAC ought to have held that the amount of interest received from Co-operative Bank/s qualify for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 6. The order of the Hon’ble NFAC suffers from perversity, because even after recording the fact that the interest received by the Appellant is from Co-operative Banks the deduction as provided u/s.80P(20(d) is not allowed. 3 ITA No.67/PAN./2024 7. The Appellant craves for leave to add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.” 3. Suffice to say, the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing it’s sec.80P deduction claim involving the investments made in cooperative societies/cooperative banks and scheduled banks; as the case may be. Learned DR further argued that this assessee is only a ‘Souhardha’ society than a cooperative society within the meaning of sec.2(19) of the Act. 4. We find that case law [2022] 134 taxmann.com 170 (Kar.) Government of India Ministry of Finance vs. Karnataka State Souhardha Federal Co-operative Ltd., has rejected the foregoing technical objection thereby treating a “Souhardha” society as very much a cooperative society u/sec.2(19) of the Act. 5. The situation is hardly any different regarding nature of the assessee’s interest income derived from cooperative societies/cooperative banks and nationalized banks; as the case may be in light of The Hukkeri Taluk Agri Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Dist. Belagavi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Belagavi in ITA.No.30/PAN./2018 vide order dated 16.11.2021 as well as The Vaveru Co-operative Rural 4 ITA No.67/PAN./2024 Bank Ltd., vs. CCIT [2017] 396 ITR 371 (AP); respectively. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 29 th July, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Panaji concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, Panaji-Bench, Panaji. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.