M/S.MUGU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs. THE ITO, KASARGODE

The assessee is a Service Co-operative Bank registered under Kerala Cooperative Act. The assessee has filed its return of income claiming deduction under Section 80P. The same came to be denied on the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the primary object of a Credit Society in SP 196 2 M/s. Mugu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. so far as it was not providing financial accommodation to its members for agricultural purposes or for purposes connected with agricultural activities.

On appeal the learned CIT(A), following the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 414 ITR 67, upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80P.

Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. appeared on behalf of Revenue.

On further appeal before the Tribunal it was submitted by the learned A.R. that the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7343 to 7350 of 2019 dated 12th January, 2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 45 to 48 had held as under: - “45. To sum up, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra), must be given effect to. Section 80P of the IT Act, being a benevolent provision enacted by Parliament to encourage and promote the credit of the co-operative sector in general must be read liberally and reasonably, and if there is ambiguity, in favour of the assessee. A deduction that is given without any reference to any restriction or limitation cannot be restricted or limited by implication, as is sought to be done by the Revenue in the present case by adding the word “agriculture” into Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when it is not there. Further, section 80P(4) is to be read as a proviso, which proviso now specifically excludes co- operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business i.e. engaged inlending money to members of the public, which have a licence in this behalf from the RBI. Judged by this touchstone, it is clear that the impugned Full Bench judgment is wholly incorrect in its reading of Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra). Clearly, therefore, once section 80P(4) is out of harm’s way, all the assessees in the present case are entitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given to non-members, profits attributable to such loans obviously cannot be deducted. 46. It must also be mentioned here that unlike the Andhra Act that Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra) considered, ‘nominal members’ are ‘members’ as defined under the Kerala Act. This Court in U.P.

Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra), the Kerala Act expressly permits loans to non-members under section 59(2) and (3), which reads as follows: “59. Restrictions on loans.- (1) A society shall not make a loan to any person or a society other than a member: Provided that the above restriction shall not be applicable to the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. Provided further that, with the general or special sanction of the Registrar, a society may make loans to another society. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a society may make a loan to a depositor on the security of his deposit. (3) Granting of loans to members or to non-members under sub- section (2) and recovery thereof shall be in the manner as may be specified by the Registrar.” Thus, the giving of loans by a primary agricultural credit society to nonmembers is not illegal, unlike the facts in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra).

Resultantly, the impugned Full Bench judgment is set aside. The appeals and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly. These appeals are directed to be placed before

In reply the learned D.R. vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has also violated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. and does not pass the litmus test for mutuality.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also further explained the decision in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. in so far as the deduction that is given without any reference to any restriction or limitation cannot be restricted or limited by implication. In the circumstances in respectful obedience to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) the AO is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of deduction under Section 80P as claimed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee the Stay Petition has become infructuous, hence dismissed.