Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH
Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs 5,14,181/-: 1) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
ITA No.1424/M/2023 2 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs 5,14,181/- under section 8OP (2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in respect of interest received from deposits kept in co-operative banks, without appreciating that, the co- operatives banks are registered under the Co- Operatives Societies Act, 1912 with a license to undertake banking activities. 3) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld NFAC erred in not following the judgments of jurisdictional Tribunal which has explained the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that deduction under section 80P (2)(d) of the Act is eligible in respect of interest received from the Co- Operative Banks. 4) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.5,14,181/- under section 80P (2)(d) of the Act made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the disallowance is a debatable issue and hence the adjustment is bad in law. 5) The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal.”
Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : assessee being a cooperative housing society filed its return for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.15,53,951/- by claiming deduction to the tune of Rs.5,14,181/- on account of the interest from its surplus funds deposited with cooperative banks. However, Central Processing Center (CPC)/Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has deleted the addition on technical ground that “no incrimination material was found to sustain the addition” by dismissing the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.
ITA No.1424/M/2023 3 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
I have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.
The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee firstly on technical ground that the assessee has failed to bring on record sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay of 681 days.
The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not intention nor malafide rather caused due to the fact that the assessee had received intimation from Central Processing Centre/AO under section 143(1) dated 31.05.2019 and rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated 09.09.2019, which were immediately handed over to their chartered accountant M/s. KVS and Company who did not file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee was not aware of Ld. CIT(A)’s proceedings at all. The assessee came to know about the appeal on receiving intimation under section 245 of the Act by email on 30.03.2021 for a proposal to adjustment of refund for A.Y. 2020-21 against outstanding demand for A.Y. 2018 – 19. Thereafter newly engaged CA forwarded case papers to the counsel who has filed the appeal on 15.05.2021; that out of the delay of 681 days the delay of 257 days is caused due to Covid period and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC).
ITA No.1424/M/2023 4 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue on the other hand opposed the application on the ground that massive delay in filing the appeal is intentional as no action has been taken by the assessee society against the CA who has immediately not filed the appeal within time.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee society is being managed by volunteers of the society and not by professionals and the fact that for the negligence or inadvertence on the part of the CA mainly M/s. KVS and company assessee could not be made to suffer. Moreover fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be denied to the assessee on account of fault of its CA who was otherwise engaged to provide professional assistance.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others (supra) has held that “it is on contention of delay that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the case of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay.”
In view of the matter, I find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 681 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) who has erred in not condoning the same. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned.
ITA No.1424/M/2023 5 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Undisputedly assessee society has invested its surplus funds with cooperative banks and earned the interest income to the tune of Rs.5,14,181/- and claimed deduction under section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act which has been disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC).
Now the issue to the allowability of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is no longer res- integra having been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. in ITA No.561/M/2021 order dated 09.09.2022 wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by distinguishing the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) and by discussing the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court wherein it is held that interest income earned by the Co-operative Society on its investment made with co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act by returning following findings: “8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties in context of the aforesaid issue under consideration. As stated by the ld. A.R, and rightly so, the issue that interest received by a co-operative society on its deposits with co-operative banks would be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is covered in assessee’s favour by orders of the various coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the following cases : (i). M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT-26, Mumbai, ITA No.3155/Mum/2019, dated 29.11.2019
ITA No.1424/M/2023 6 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
(ii). Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum.) (iii). M/s C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017. (iv). Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range 20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA NO. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (v). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai.
In the aforesaid orders, it has been held by the Tribunal that though the cooperative banks pursuant to the insertion of sub-section (4) to Sec. 80P of the Act would no more be entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society 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-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that the aforesaid issue had exhaustively been looked into by the ITAT, „G‟ bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd, Vs. Pr.CIT-26, Mumbai ITA No.3155/Mum/2019, dated 29.11.2019, wherein the Tribunal had observed as under :
“6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought, for adjudicating, as to whether the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from the investments/deposits made with the co-operative banks is in order, or not. In our considered view, the issue involved in the present appeal revolves around the adjudication of the scope and gamut of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P as had been made available on the statute, vide the Finance Act 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007. On a perusal of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, we find, that he was of the view that pursuant to insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P, the assessee would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest income that was earned on the amounts which were parked as investments/deposits with co-operative banks, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Observing, that the co-operative banks from where the assessee was in receipt of interest income were not co-operative societies, the Pr. CIT was of the view that the interest income earned on such investments/deposits would not be eligible for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
ITA No.1424/M/2023 7 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
After necessary deliberations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT. Before proceeding any further, we may herein reproduce the relevant extract of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d), as the same 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-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 subsection (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2). The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :-
(a)............................................................................................ (b)............................................................................................ (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-operative society, the whole of such income;”
On a perusal of Sec. 80P(2)(d), it can safely be gathered that interest income derived by an assessee co-operative society from its investments held with any other co-operative society shall be deducted in computing its total income. 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 society with any other co-operative society. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT, 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 no more be applicable in relation to any co-operative bank, other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. However, at the same time, we are unable to subscribe to his view that the aforesaid amendment would jeopardise the claim of deduction of a co- operative society under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of its interest income on investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. In our considered view, as long as it is proved that the interest income is being derived by a co-operative society from its investments 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 find that the term „cooperative society‟ had been defined under Sec. 2(19) of the Act, as under:-
“(19) “Co-operative society” means a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of
ITA No.1424/M/2023 8 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any state for the registration of co-operative societies;”
We are of the considered view, that though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co- operative society 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-operative societies, therefore, the interest income 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.
We shall now advert to the judicial pronouncements that have been relied upon by the ld. A.R. We find that the issue that a co- operative society would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income derived from its investments held with a co-operative bank is covered in favour of the assessee in the following cases:
(i) Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum) (ii) M/s C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai.
We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments 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, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same being
ITA No.1424/M/2023 9 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
distinguishable on facts had wrongly been relied 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 towards deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income on the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). At the same time, we find, that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had observed, that the interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, 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 High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), wherein it was observed that the interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 9. Be that as it may, in our considered view, as the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and therein concluded that the assessee would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with cooperative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for dislodging the same. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view taken by the A.O at the time of framing of the assessment was clearly supported by the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum). Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we
ITA No.1424/M/2023 10 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
“set aside” his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), date 14.09.2016.” As the facts and the issue involved in the present case before us remains the same as were there before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd. (supra), wherein the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act was quashed, we, thus, respectfully follow the same. Backed by our aforesaid deliberations, we are unable to uphold the view taken by the Pr. CIT that the failure on the part of the A.O to be disallow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken by the Pr. CIT that the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 31.08.2017 was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the Act set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017.”
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Pr. CIT & Anr. Vs. Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 292 ITR 74 (Kar.) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) had held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investment held with co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
So following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra) and co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that assessee society who has earned an amount of Rs.5,14,181/- from its investment of surplus fund with co-operative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of
ITA No.1424/M/2023 11 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
In view of what has been discussed above I am of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the assessee society claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, hence AO is directed to allow the same.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2023.
Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 26.07.2023. * Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.