S S K PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGH NIYAMIT ,BAGALKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

ITA 2135/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves SSK Pattina Sahakara Sangh Niyamit, a credit cooperative society, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was related to an interest income of \\u20b9 75,82,807 earned from deposits made with nationalized and cooperative banks. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed this deduction, stating it did not qualify under the specified section, which led to the society declaring a nil taxable income in its return. The Tribunal considered similar precedents and directed a re-examination of the case by the AO, focusing on whether the interest income was earned from statutory compulsions and thus eligible for the deduction claimed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360724 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: SRCC Society Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Kalika Parameswari Co-operative Society Ltd vs. ITO, Bharat Co-operative Credit Society v. ITO, M/s. Kachur Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., v. ITO, Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd. v. PCIT, M.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, Karnataka State cooperative apex bank v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP CHALAPATHY
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Co-operative Credit Society

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2135/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 SSK Pattina Sahakara Sangh Niyamit, Bannjkatti Road, Near Amba Bhavani Temple, PO – Ilkal – 587125. Tq-Hungund Dt-Bagalkot. PAN – AACAS 9807 J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 &TPS, Bagalkot. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 16/09/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1068720031(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) with respect to the deduction claimed by the assessee amounting to ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 7 . ₹75,82,807 under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee is a credit cooperative society and engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. It filed its return of income declaring nil taxable income after claiming a deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment, the AO noted that the assessee had earned interest income from deposits made with nationalized and cooperative banks. According to the AO, such interest income does not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly, he disallowed the claimed amount of ₹75,82,807 and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the ITAT, Bangalore Bench, in the case of SRCC Society Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (ITA Nos. 1986 & 1987/Bang/2024, order dated 07.03.2025), under identical facts and circumstances, had set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The ITAT had also issued detailed directions for computing the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the AR requested that the matter on hand being similar to ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 7 . the above, should also be remanded to the AO with appropriate/ similar directions. 7. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the matter being remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and examined the materials available on record. Though multiple grounds have been raised, the learned AR restricted his arguments to the issue of allowability of interest income on deposits mandated under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the deduction under section 57 of the Act. 8.1 The AR contended that since the deposits were made in compliance with statutory requirements, the interest income earned thereon should be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, for any interest income not eligible under the said provision, the corresponding expenditure ought to be deductible under section 57 of the Act. 8.2 We find the argument of the learned AR is plausible and in line with the position taken by the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case cited above, which was also not contested by the DR. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of SRCC Society Ltd. (Supra) is reproduced as under: 15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding paragraphs, we note that the primary issue in dispute pertains to the eligibility of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from deposits made with the District Co- ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 7 . operative Bank Ltd, Vijayapura. The crux of the matter is whether such interest income is to be considered as \"business income\" eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or to be classified as \"Income from Other Sources\" and taxed accordingly. 15.1 We note that the deposit in question was not voluntarily made by the assessee society for investment purposes but were instead mandated by the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. As per section 57(2) of the said Act, every co-operative society is required to set aside at least 25% of its net profit each year as a reserve fund. Further, as per section 58 of said Act, such reserve funds must be mandatorily invested in specified institutions, including District Co- operative Banks. We find that this statutory requirement imposes a legal obligation on the assessee society to maintain such deposits, thereby restricting its ability to freely use or withdraw these funds for its business operations without prior approval from the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. 15.2 Given this statutory compulsion, we find that the interest income arising from these deposits cannot be equated with interest income derived from surplus funds voluntarily parked in banks for earning a return. Therefore, we hold that the interest income earned from such statutory deposits should be considered as operational income derived in the course of the assessee’s business and consequently qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In holding so, we also draw support and guidance from the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case CIT versus Karnataka State cooperative apex bank reported in 251 ITR 194 where in it was held as under: There is no doubt, and it is not disputed, that the assessee-co- operative bank is required to place a part of its funds with the State Bank or the Reserve Bank of India to enable it to carry on its banking business. This being so, any income derived from funds so placed arises from the business carried on by it and the assessee has not, by reason of section 80P(2)(a)( i), to pay income-tax thereon. The placement of such funds being imperative for the purposes of carrying on the banking business, the income derived therefrom would be income from the assessee's business. We are unable to take the view that found favour with the Bench that decided the case of M.P. Co- operative Bank Ltd. (supra) that only income derived from circulating or working capital would fall within section 80P(2)(a)( i). There is nothing in the phraseology of that provision which makes it applicable only to income derived from working or circulating capital. 15.3 However, we are also conscious to the fact that the detail of quantum of amount necessary to be deposited to comply with the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act is not provided by the assessee neither looked into by the lower authorities. In the identical facts and ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 7 . circumstances, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Kalika Parameswari Co-operative Society Ltd vs. ITO reported in 159 taxmann.com 1466 has set aside the issue to the file of the AO to compute the amount necessary to be deposited. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as under: 10. As per the directions of Registrar of Karnataka Co- operative Societies which is placed at pages 52-53 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee, we find that all primary co- operative societies are to be mandatorily made to invest 25% of total deposits as liquid fund (SLR) and 3% of the total deposits as cash reserve (CRR) with the concerned Central District Co-operative Banks to run credit facilities by a primary agricultural credit co-operative society in the State of Karnataka. The CBDT Circular No.18/2015 dated 02.11.2015 has clarified that interest income from SLR/non-SLR investment by banking company and a cooperative society shall be chargeable under the head \"profit and gains of business or profession\". On identical factual situation, we find the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kachur Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., v. ITO in ITA No. 478/Bang/2023 (order dated 26.09.2023), by following earlier orders of the Tribunal, had held as follows: \"8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue for adjudication is whether a sum of Rs.5,07,822/-can be allowed as a deduction under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.5,07,822/- has been received by the assessee from South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is the claim of the assessee that the amounts are invested in compliance with the relevant Acts and Rules. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Co-operative Credit Society v. ITO (supra) by following the Co-ordinate Bench's order in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd. v. PCIT in ITA No. 453/Bang/2020 (order dated 13.08.2021) had stated that if the investments made with the Central Co-operative Bank is out of compulsions under Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Rules, the income received from such investments would be entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Co-operative Credit Society v. ITO (supra) reads as follows: \"7.1 In the instant case, it was contended that majority of the interest income is earned out of investments made with Cooperative Banks and is in compliance with the requirement under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. If the amounts are invested in compliance with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, necessarily, the same is to be assessed as income from business, which entails the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. Insofar as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act is concerned, we make it clear ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 7 . that interest income received out of investments with cooperative societies is to be allowed as deduction.\" 9. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, I restore the issue to the files of the AO to examine whether interest income received amounting to Rs.5,07,822/- from South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is out of compulsions and in compliance with the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and the relevant Rules. If it is so, the same interest income is to be assessed as income from business which would entail the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. With the aforesaid observation, I restore the matter to the AO. It is ordered accordingly.\" 11. In light of the above orders of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to examine whether the interest income received on investment with Central Co-operative Bank is out of compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the relevant Rules. If it is so, the same may be considered as 'business income' and entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In other words, if assessee society does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Act, and the Rules of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, it cannot carry on its cooperative activities, namely carry on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, if the investments are out of compulsion under the Act and relevant Rules, necessarily it is part of assessee's business activity entailing the benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 15.4 Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion and judicial pronouncements, we in the interest of justice and fair play, are inclined to set aside the issue to the file of the AO with direction to compute the required quantum of amount needs to be deposited as per statutory requirement and allow the claim of the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of corresponding interest income. 15.5 Furthermore, without prejudice to the above finding, we are also inclined to consider the alternative plea raised by the assessee. In the event that the AO found that the any amount of investment over and above the required statutory limit and classify the interest income from such deposits as \"Income from Other Sources,\" then it is imperative that the corresponding cost incurred in earning such income must be deducted while computing taxable income. It is a well- established principle of taxation that only net income should be brought to tax, and any expenditure directly attributable to the earning of such income should be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, we direct the AO to grant a proportionate deduction of the corresponding cost, if any, while assessing the interest income under the head \"Income from Other Sources.\" ITA No.2135/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 7 . 15.6 In light of the above reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements. The AO is directed to re-examine the taxability of such interest income in accordance with this finding, as per law and grant appropriate relief to the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8.3 The facts in the present case are identical to those in SRCC Society Ltd. (supra) and therefore, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the decision in SRCC Society Ltd. (supra), the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in line with the directions issued therein. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 23rd day of May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 23rd May, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "