PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,KODAGU V. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU -3, BENGALURU

ITA 1073/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society against the revisionary order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which challenged the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act for interest income from cooperative banks. The Assessing Officer had initially allowed the deduction, considering the interest income as business income attributable to the society's activities. However, the Principal Commissioner later contested this decision, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions, relevant judicial decisions, and the arguments presented by both parties, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee based on the precedents and the interpretation of section 80P.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834490 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Tumkur Merchants Credit Co-op. Society v. ITO, Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 263; 56; 80HHC

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2020-21 Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, Main Road, Balele Village, Balele Post, Virajpet Tq., Kodagu – 571 219. PAN: AAAAB 1535C Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, Balele Village, Balele Post, (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2020-21 against the revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the ld. Principal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 15 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bangalore [PCIT] dated 27.03.2025 holding that the assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 144B the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on 5.9.2022 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (the ld. AO) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent that interest income of ₹ 2,580,032/– on fund deposits made in various banks are allowed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not allowable to the assessee. Such income should have been taxed as income from other sources and no deduction under section 80P is allowable. 2. The assessee aggrieved with the above order passed u/s. 263 of the Act has preferred this appeal. The main grounds of appeal shows that the ld. PCIT could not have invoked the jurisdiction and further when the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the two decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the learned PCIT could not have invoked the provisions of section 263 of Act in view of two views available on an issue and the ld.AO has adopted one of such views which is also backed by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, such an order could not have been held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is registered cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and is entitled to claim deduction under various provisions of section 80 P of the Act. Therefore the assessee filed its return of income on 22.10.2020 declaring total income at Rs. Nil but has Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 claimed deduction under section 80P of the Act of ₹ 3,599,135/–, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Several notices were issued to the assessee in one of them being about the deduction claimed by the assessee. This is also the only reason for which the return of income was selected for scrutiny under compulsory criteria for verification of the deduction from total income under Chapter VIA of the Act. After the discussion the total income of the assessee was accepted at returned income. 4. In the return, the assessee has shown the profits and gains of the business and profession of ₹ 3,599,133/– and claimed the total income as deduction under section 80P being the income of the cooperative societies by saying that the claim of the assessee is eligible u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act being the business of the banking credit facilities to its member. Thus the assessee has shown the total income as income attributable from the business of the banking and credit facilities to its members. 5. The ld.AO issued a notice under section 143 (2) of the Act asking the assessee to explain the deduction from total income under chapter VIA of the Act which was replied by the assessee submitting the detailed note on the activities carried on during the assessment proceedings where the assessee submitted that it is a primary agricultural credit cooperative society registered under the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act. It was stated that hundred percent of the income or profits generated from primary agricultural credit cooperative society Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 activities are eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act and therefore the deduction has been claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of the whole of the income. The assessee submitted the copies of the byelaws, list of members of the society and list of different agricultural loans given to the members. The AO further issued a notice u/s. 142 (1) of the Act on 5.11.2021 asking the assessee once again that the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P amounting to ₹ 3,599,133, but details are required such as detailed note on nature of business, computation of amount of deduction and note on eligibility of deduction under section 80 P of the Act and further justification how the interest income earned from a banking company is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. The assessee replied on 12.11.2021 once again giving the complete details of the interest income. The assessee submitted that it has received the bank interest from eight different banks and most of the banks are the apex cooperative banks. And therefore the interest income earned by them is also out of the reserve fund and hence it is claimed as a business income. It was further claimed that the whole of the amount of the profit is attributable to the activities of the assessee of the carrying on of the business of banking in providing credit facilities to its members. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued by the ld.AO on 22.3.2022 on the issue of deduction from total income under chapter VIA of the Act wherein the ld.AO issued a 10 pages show cause notice giving several reasons that why the deduction claimed by the assessee of ₹ 3,599,133 should not be disallowed. The assessee submitted Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 15 response thereto on 23.3.2022 wherein it relied upon the several judicial precedents and submitted that that assessee is entitled to the above deduction and the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court relied upon by the ld.AO does not apply to the facts of the case. Based on this ld.AO passed an assessment order on 5.9.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act allowing the claim of the assessee. 6. The learned PCIT on examination of the records, issued a show cause notice wherein it was challenged that the assessment was completed by the ld.AO at the returned income though the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the genuineness of the expenses deducted u/s. 57 of the Act. Therefore the learned PCIT noted that assessee has admitted that the income of ₹ 3,853,788 were shown by the assessee against the gross receipt of ₹ 64,229,803 estimating the 6% of the entire receipts as the income. The learned PCIT noted that the assessing officer should have enquired about the basis on which the assessee estimated the net profit at the rate of 6%. Accordingly the show cause notice was issued that assessing officer has not made proper enquiry verification with regard to the above issue and has committed an error which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The show cause notice is placed at page No. 65 – 67 of the paper book. 7. The assessee submitted a reply on 11.3.2025 which is placed at page No. 68 and 70 of the paper book wherein the assessee submitted that all the facts stated in the show cause notice are not relevant to the assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 15 and somebody else facts are noted in the show cause notice by the learned PCIT and therefore the notice u/s. 263 of the Act be withdrawn. 8. The learned PCIT noting the above error in the issue of the show cause notice issued another notice on 21st of March 2025 wherein it was stated that the interest income claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of ₹ 3,599,133 granted by the ld.AO without proper verification of the relevant documents and therefore the assessment order passed by the ld.AO on 5 September 2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. The assessee once again replied on 25th of March 2025 stating that the ld.AO has granted the deduction after verification of the details, further the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Credit Co-op. Society v. ITO,230 Taxman 309 which is also after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. Further the assessee also put to the kind attention of the learned PCIT that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 431 ITR 1 is also required to be considered. 10. The ld. PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of such income as it is not business income attributable to the business of the assessee but is income from other sources and further as the assessee has earned interest from cooperative banks, the deduction is also not available to the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore it was held that the order of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 15 ld.AO granting the assessee deduction u/s. 80P is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in 83 taxmann.com 140. Accordingly the AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 188 Taxman 282. The revisionary order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 27.3.2025. 11. The assessee aggrieved with the same has preferred an appeal before us. The learned authorized representative has filed a paper book containing 90 pages wherein he has relied upon the several judicial precedents of the coordinate benches as well as the decision in case of the assessee also. The main claim of the ld. AR was that the interest income earned by the assessee from the cooperative banks is a business income of the assessee as the income is attributable to the business. This view is upheld by the two decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Co-op. Society Ltd as well as the decision of the Totagars Co-op. Sale Society. He further stated that that both these decisions are covering the issue of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and are directly on the point. He submits that the ld. PCIT has relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which is on the other issue. It was further stated that even otherwise it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when two views are possible and if the AO follows one of the views, the said order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as per the decision of CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 15 He therefore submitted that this order passed by the ld. PCIT cannot be sustained. He further referred to several judicial precedents of the coordinate benches where on the identical facts and circumstances, the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was quashed. 12. The learned departmental representative, Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR) vehemently supported the orders of the learned PCIT. It was stated that the jurisdictional High Court has decided this issue based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has not been followed by the ld. AO and therefore not following the order of the jurisdictional High Court makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He further stated that the assessee has received interest income which was not shown to have been received and is attributable to the business of the assessee of providing credit facilities to its members. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We find that the ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings has issued a specific show cause notice to the assessee on limited scrutiny that the deduction claimed by the assessee under chapter VIA of the Act is required to be examined. He specifically noted that the assessee has received interest income from cooperative banks. On the basis of his examination and on the basis of the reply furnished by the assessee in response to show cause notice, he examined the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. He found that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 15 with respect to the interest income earned by the assessee from cooperative societies/cooperative banks. 14. The ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice on examination of the record holding that the assessing officer should have followed the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court wherein it has been held that that interest income earned by the assessee from cooperative society and cooperative banks is required to be taxed u/s. 56 of the Act and assessee is not eligible for any deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The ld. PCIT on perusal of the record also noted that the learned assessing officer has applied the same decision of the Hon’ble High Court and when confronted with the other two decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka)/[2017] 392 ITR 74 (Karnataka)[05-01-2017] & Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] held that assessee is entitled to deduction to the extent of ₹ 44 lakhs on the interest income earned from the cooperative societies as this income is attributable to the business income of the assessee. Thus the assessee was granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 15. In Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income- tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 15 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] it is held that :- 6. From the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the undisputed facts which emerges is, the sum of Rs. 1,77,305/- represents the interest earned from short-term deposits and from savings bank account. The assessee is a Cooperative Society providing credit facilities to its members. It is not carrying on any other business. The interest income earned by the assessee by providing credit facilities to its members is deposited in the banks for a short duration which has earned interest. Therefore, whether this interest is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members, is the question. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the relevant provision of law i.e., Section 80P(2)(a)(i): \"Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies: 80P (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative 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 sums 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) in the case of co-operative society engaged in— (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) to (vii) xx xx xx Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 15 the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities.\" 7. The word 'attributable' used in the said section is of great importance. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to derive from its use in various other provisions of the statute in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) as under: 'As regards the aspect emerging from the expression \"attributable to\" occurring in the phrase \"profits and gains attributable to the business of the specified industry (here generation and distribution of electricity) on which the learned Solicitor-General relied, it will be pertinent to observe that the legislature, has deliberately used the expression \"attributable to\" and not the expression \"derived from\". It cannot be disputed that the expression \"attributable to\" is certainly wider in import than the expression \"derived from\". Had the expression \"derived from\" been used, it could have with some force been contended that a balancing charge arising from the sale of old machinery and buildings cannot be regarded as profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In this connection, it may be pointed out that whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner suggested by the learned Solicitor-General, it has used the expression ''derived from\", as, for instance, in section-80J. In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely, \"attributable to'', has been used, the legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity.' 8. Therefore, the word \"attributable to\" is certainly wider in import than the expression \"derived from\". Whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning, they have used the expression \"derived from\". The expression \"attributable to\" being of wider import, the said expression is used by the legislature whenever they intended to gather receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business. A Cooperative Society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 15 facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate business for earning such interest income. The income so derived is the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act. 9. In this context when we look at the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., on which reliance is placed, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the assessee-Cooperative Society, apart from providing credit facilities to the members, was also in the business of marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. The sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members was retained in many cases. The said retained amount which was payable to its members from whom produce was bought, was invested in a short-term deposit/security. Such an amount which was retained by the assessee - Society was a liability and it was shown in the balance sheet on the liability side. Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court held the assessing officer was right in taxing the interest income indicated above under Section 56 of the Act. Further they made it clear that they are confining the said judgment to the facts of that case. Therefore it is clear, Supreme Court was not laying down any law. 10. In the instant case, the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any members. It was not the liability. It was not shown as liability in their account. In fact this amount which is in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State co- operative Bank Ltd., [2011] 200 Taxman 220/12 taxmann.com 66. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly it is hereby set aside. The substantial Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 13 of 15 question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 16. We find that when the ld. AO has followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka)/ [2017] 392 ITR 74 (Karnataka) [05-01-2017] and granted the deduction, the ld. PCIT could not have held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 17. Even otherwise, the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Co-op. Society, Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [ supra ] are in favour of the assessee and the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubballi vs. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society [2017] 83 taxmann.com 140 (Karnataka)/[2017] 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka)/[2017] 297 CTR 158 (Karnataka)[16-06- 2017] is against the assessee. Therefore ld.AO has followed the one of the two possible views and allowed the claim of the assessee. When the ld.AO has followed one of the views, it cannot be said that the order of the ld.AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Such was the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 15 [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC)/[2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC)/[2007] 213 CTR 266 (SC)[01-11-2007]where in it was held as under :- “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase \"prejudicial to the interest of the revenue\" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression \"erroneous\" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when the Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General on interpretation of the provision of section 80HHC(3) as it then stood the view taken by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable in law and therefore the Commissioner was right in invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act. In this connection he has further submitted that in fact 2005 amendment which is clarificatory and retrospective in nature itself indicates that the view taken by the Assessing Officer at the relevant time was unsustainable in law. We find no merit in the said contentions. Firstly, it is not in dispute when the Order of the Commissioner was passed there were two views on the word 'profit' in that section. The problem with section 80HHC is that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order. Moreover the mechanics of the section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective will not attract the provision of section 263 particularly when as stated above we have to take into account the position of law as it stood on the date when the Commissioner passed the order dated 5-3-1997 in purported exercise of his powers under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.” 18. Deciding the issue based on the decision of the Honourable Jurisdictional high court could not have been said that assessment order passed is unsustainable in law. In view of the above facts, we hold that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1073/Bang/2025 Page 15 of 15 the order passed by the ld. PCIT holding that the assessment order passed by the ld.AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue is not sustainable and hence quashed. 19. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 3rd February, 2026. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "