SHRI VITTHAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

ITA 2648/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vitthal Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kolhapur, a cooperative credit society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that denied them deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed the deduction, categorizing the interest income as 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal examined various precedents and the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly section 80P, which provides deductions to cooperative societies for income derived from their business activities. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by similar cases where it was held that interest income from deposits made out of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under section 80P.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472344 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Totagarh's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283, Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others, Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 371, Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322, Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO ITA No.644/PUN/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHIT DILIP BARI
• Assessee Lawyers: VAIBHAV RUIKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c); 80P

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Vitthal Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kolhapur, 2362 C Ward, Near Shivgiri Math, Sonya Maruti Chowk, Shaniwar Peth, Maharashtra – 416002. PAN: AAFAS2551N V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Vaibhav Ruikar – AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated15.10.2024 for A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 2 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, CIT(A) is correct in concluding that interest earned from Co- operative Bank of Rs.11,42,735/-is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) without appreciating the fact that these deposits are Part and parcel of business activity. 2. Without prejudice to the above, whether on fact and circumstance of the case and in law. CIT(A) is correct in not allowing interest earned from co-operative bank of Rs. 11,42,735/-as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) without appreciating the fact that these deposit or investments are with co-operative societies which includes co- operative banks. 3. Whether on fact and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is correct in applying Totagarh's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 as the in Totagarh case the surplus had arisen from marketing of agriculture produces. 4. Whether on fact and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is correct in applying Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others as the in Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank case Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank was a Co-Operative bank unlike the Appellant is a Co- Operative Society, 5. Without prejudice to the above, whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) is correct in not allowing proportionate expenditure against the interest earned on Deposit and taxed as other source. 6. Whether CIT (A) has given fair chance of hearing to the Appellant and concluded the Appeal Proceedings? Further it is requested that: - a) The Assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. b) It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed. c) Personal hearing may be granted to us for explaining our case.” Submission of ld.AR: 2. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Assessee filed an elaborate paper book which contains synopsis and case laws relied. ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 3 Ld.AR explained that Assessee has earned interest income from Shri Panchganga Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited. Ld.AR further explained that the AO disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a) on the ground that the impugned interest is not earned from activity of providing credit facility to its members. Ld.AR further submitted that the AO has erred as the interest income has been earned from the main activity of assessee of providing credit facility to its members. As per Provisions of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, Assessee has to maintain the fixed deposits with Regional Sahakari Banks. Ld.AR further relied on following case laws : o ITAT Pune Decision in Jankalyan Multistate co-operative Credit Society Limited. o ITAT Pune Decision in Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., o ITAT Pune Decision in Nashik Road Nagari SahkariPatsanstha Limited. Submission of ld.DR: 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 4 Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As per the assessment order, Assessee is Co-operative Credit Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Ld.AR filed copy of the Registration Certificate dated 19.04.2001 issued by Deputy Registrar, Co-operatives, under Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960(Page 24 of the paper book). Assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim. The relevant paragraphs of the assessment order are reproduced as under : “4.2 From the perusal of the reply of the assessee society, it is noticed that the said society has received the interest income of Rs.11,42,735/- on account of time deposit with the different banks. These income are not earned from the business of providing the credit facilities to its members and the same are not eligible for claiming the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee society was required to declare this income under the head “Income from other sources”. In this connection, it may be pointed-out that in case, the interest income of Rs.11,42,738/- on FDRs with the above coop. Bank is reduced from the NP of Rs.1,92,693/-, then it would turn into a loss case i.e. loss of Rs.9,50,042/- (Rs.1,92,693-11,42,735) would be there and in that case no deduction U/s 80P would be allowable, being “No Income, No deduction”. Hence, the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest from the fixed deposit with co-op banks amounting Rs.1,92,693/- in the return of income is not allowable to the assessee society. ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 5 ………………….. 4.11 Further, show cause notice proposing the additions to be made in this case has been issued to the assessee on 25.01.2024 to furnish its reply along with documentary evidences to this office by 01.02.2024. But till date no reply has been furnished by the assessee meaning thereby that the assessee has no objections to the proposed additions to be made in its case In view of the detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that a co-operative banks are at par with the other Banks carrying out banking activities, who are also having banking licence from the RBI, hence FDRs made with the Coop. Banks out of surplus funds year-after-year cannot be termed as deposits with the coop. Societies. In view of the above facts, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act on FDRs with the Coop. Banks at Rs.1,92,693/- does not qualify for deduction U/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly the deduction of Rs.1,92,693/- is hereby disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. As the assessee has concealed particulars of its income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated in this case.” 4.1 Thus, Assessing Officer held that interest earned by assessee is taxable as income from other sources. Aggrieved by assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4.2 Thus, the issue before us is whether assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, on the interest earned from Co-operative Banks or not! ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 6 4.2.1 This issue has been dealt in various decision of ITAT Pune in favour of assessee. 5. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 371 analysed the provisions of Section 80P, succinctly distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society, and held as under : Quote,“8. Therefore, the real controversy arising in these writ petitions is as to whether the income derived by the petitioners by way of interest on the fixed deposits made by them with the banks, is to be treated as profits and gains of business attributable to any one of the activities indicated in sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (a) of sub- section (2) of section 80P or not. 9. While the petitioners place strong reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Co- operative Bank Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 66/200 Taxman 200/336 ITR 516, the Revenue places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282/322 ITR 283. …………………… 34. The case before the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.'s case (supra) was in respect of a co-operative credit society, which was also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. As seen from the facts disclosed in the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Totgars, from out of which the decision of the Supreme Court arose, the assessee was carrying on the business of marketing agricultural produce of the members of the society. It is also found from paragraph-3 of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.'s case (supra) that the business activity other than marketing of the agricultural produce actually resulted in net loss to the society. Therefore, it appears that the assessee in Totgars was carrying on some of the activities listed in clause (a) along with other activities. This is perhaps the reason that ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 7 the assessee did not pay to its members the proceeds of the sale of their produce, but invested the same in banks. As a consequence, the investments were shown as liabilities, as they represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived from the investments made by retaining the monies belonging to the members cannot certainly be termed as profits and gains of business. This is why Totgar's struck a different note. 35. But, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the investment made by the petitioners in fixed deposits in nationalised banks, were of their own monies. If the petitioners had invested those amounts in fixed deposits in other co-operative societies or in the construction of godowns and warehouses, the respondents would have granted the benefit of deduction under clause (d) or (e), as the case may be. 36. The original source of the investments made by the petitioners in nationalised banks is admittedly the income that the petitioners derived from the activities listed in sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (a). The character of such income may not be lost, especially when the statute uses the expression \"attributable to\" and not any one of the two expressions, namely, \"derived from\" or \"directly attributable to\". 37. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed, and the order of the Assessing Officer, in so far as it relates to treating the interest income as something not allowable as a deduction under section 80P(2)(a), is set aside.”Unquote. 5.1 Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of AP &TS held that Interest Income earned by investing Income derived from Business and Profession by a Co-Operative Society was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) of the Act. 5.2 No contrary decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has been brought to our notice. Therefore, as per rule of ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 8 precedence, the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of AP & TS (supra) are binding precedents for us. 6. The Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks as well as schedule bank qualifies for deduction both under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, therefore, the reasoning given by the lower authorities on this issue cannot be accepted. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from cooperative bank/scheduled bank. Thus, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.”Unquote 6.1 The Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO in ITA No.644/PUN/2024 dated 04.06.2024 held that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) of the Act on the Interest earned by assessee. ITA No.2648/PUN/2024 9 7. Respectfully following the judicial precedent, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest amount of Rs.11,42,735/-. Accordingly, the only Ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 22nd Jan, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "