Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2695/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16
M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Income Tax Officer- Credit Soc. Ltd., 27(3)(5), Room No.428, 4th Floor, Ground Floor, 6th Tower, Vaibhav Nagar Vaman Vs. Tukaram Patil Marg, Vashi Railway Station Gowandi, Complex, Mumbai – 400 088 Navi Mumbai, PAN: AAAAV5519Q Maharashtra- 400 703
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Iyer, A.R. Revenue by : Mrs. Vranda U Matkari, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21 . 12 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20 . 01 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: At the very outside the appellant, M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) sought to condone the delay of 440 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds inter-alia that the assessee cooperative society is formed for the benefit of underprivileged members of the society like small street vendors, auto rickshaw pullers and taxi drivers, small shopkeepers, salaried employees and persons who are
ITA No.2695/M/2022 2 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
unable to get finance from the national and schedule banks due to the cumbersome procedures; that assessee society does not use electronic forms of media and as such email ID of the society remained unread; that only on September 10, 2022 the assessee downloaded the order from the portals; that delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and beyond the control of the society.
However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Keeping in view the fact that the assessee cooperative society is formed for the benefit of under privileged members like street vendors, auto rickshaw pullers etc. who are not having regular access to the email ID and it is a fact on record that impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was sent to the assessee cooperative society by uploading on the income tax portal. Moreover, out of 440 days delay the delay of 145 days has already been condoned by order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court due to pandemic and we find sufficient cause to condone the remaining delay of 295 days.
Keeping in view the facts thrashed in the preceding paras and in view the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court In case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it is 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
ITA No.2695/M/2022 3 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay,” the delay of 440 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and present appeal is ordered to be registered and heard today by the Bench.
The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2015-16 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in considering interest earned by the society from other co-operative societies earned in due course of business as income from other sources and denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) against the same. 2. Alternatively, the interest income earned from other co- operative societies/banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing the same to the society. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law by not allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.50,000/-. 4. Your appellant further reserves the rights to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal as they may think fit by themselves or by their representatives” 5. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee's return of income filed for the year under consideration was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), thereafter case was subjected to scrutiny. Necessary notices were issued to the assessee society. Assessee society in the return of its income shown gross total income at Rs.54,89,912/- and the entire amount has been claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act being the interest earned by parking its surplus funds
ITA No.2695/M/2022 4 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
with cooperative Bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) after declining the contentions raised by the assessee proceeded to decline the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Act and thereby framed the assessment under section 143 of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. 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.
We 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.
Undisputedly the assessee is a cooperative credit society engaged in the business of accepting deposits and lending money only to the members of the society. It is also not in dispute that the assessee society does not hold any banking license issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). It is also not in dispute that the assessee society is formed for the benefit of underprivileged members of the society like small street vendors, auto rickshaw pullers and taxi drivers and small shopkeepers and salaried employees and persons who are unable to get finance from the national and schedule banks due to cumbersome procedure. It is also not in dispute that the assessee society has earned an amount of Rs.54,89,912/- from parking its surplus funds with the cooperative Bank.
ITA No.2695/M/2022 5 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case when we peruse the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as question of disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee society under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is no longer res-integra having been decided in number of cases by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. One such case is 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 (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.
ITA No.2695/M/2022 6 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
(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.
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
ITA No.2695/M/2022 7 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
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 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
ITA No.2695/M/2022 8 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
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. 8. 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 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
ITA No.2695/M/2022 9 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
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 “set aside” his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), date 14.09.2016.”
ITA No.2695/M/2022 10 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
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.54,89,912/-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
ITA No.2695/M/2022 11 M/s. Vaibhavnagar Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd.
denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
In view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the assessee society claimed under section 80P2D 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 20.01.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 20.01.2023.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.