SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. After examining the details filed by the assessee, the AO allowed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.33,94,955. The AO further observed that assessee has received interest income from fixed deposits in Axis Bank, SBI, KVG Bank, Canara Bank, ICICI and BDCC Bank, etc. The AO examined the issue in the light of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and observed that the interest received from cooperative bank and commercial banks do not qualify for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and completed the assessment accordingly.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), and filed detailed written submissions relying on various judgments. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the interest received on deposits of Rs.8,45,161 does not qualify for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and Other receipts of Rs.262,834 are also not covered u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has sufficient internal funds and external funds which were invested in the banks. The funds invested in fixed deposits were excess funds received from members which cannot be immediately lent out to the members. Therefore it is operational income and directly connected to the normal activities of the assessee. Therefore the interest received from cooperative bank and other banks is eligible for deduction as per section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He further submitted that the whole interest and dividend derived from investments with other cooperative society is covered u/s. 80P(2)(d). The cooperative banks are primarily registered as a cooperative society and it is merely running the business of banking after obtaining licence from RBI, but originally it is a cooperative society. Therefore interest received from cooperative bank is also eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d). He relied on the following judgments:-

In respect of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on the Other Receipts, the ld. AR submitted that the income generated in the normal activities has been classified under different heads as Other Receipts as per the consolidated Profit & Loss account and therefore it is operational income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which was denied by the lower authorities.

The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that interest received from cooperative banks and banks are not covered u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He further submitted that co- operative bank where its entire income is earned from banking activities cannot be termed as co-operative society. He further submitted that it is settled by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society reported in 395 ITR 611 that interest received from surplus funds is to be taxed as income from other sources and therefore it is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P & the assessee received interest is on Fixed Deposits which are surplus fund of the assessee. He further submitted that in the case of PCIT & Ors. v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society reported in 395 ITR 0611 (Karnataka), the Hon’ble Court had decided that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is allowable on the interest income received from co- operative society. He strongly relied on the following judgments:-

In the rejoinder, the ld. AR submitted that in the case of PCIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society {2017] 78 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka) order dated 05.01.2017, the Hon’ble Court has held that even section 56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Acts Act, 1949, defines a primary co-operative bank as the meaning of co-operative society, therefore a co-operative society bank would be included in the words ‘Co-operative Society’.

The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011- 2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. The reason is that now the investments and deposits after the Supreme Court's decision against the assessee Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), the assessee has shifted the deposits and investments from Schedule Banks to Co- operative Bank and such Co-operative Bank is essentially a Co- operative Society also and Clause (d) allows deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived by the assessee Co-operative Society from its investments with any other Co-operative Society.

The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business income from such exemption/deduction category. The words used in Section 80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society …..". The words "in relation to" can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a co-operative Society from a Co-operative Bank.

The amendment of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act.

If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended that the omission to amend Clause (d) of Section 80P(2) of the Act at the same time is fatal to the contention raised by the Revenue before this Court and sub silentio, the deduction should continue in respect of interest income earned from the co-operative bank, even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Respondent assessee itself is otherwise.

As stated above, it is the character and nature of income which determines its taxability or exemption from taxability. It is needless to say that the provisions relating to exemption and deduction need to be strictly construed and no liberal interpretation or intendment can be inferred in such provisions. What was clearly held to be not exempt and not deductible under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of respondent assessee, cannot be contrarily held as exempted and deductible now for these years, merely because the depository bank, with whom the investments were made by the respondent assessee happens to be a co-operative bank. We cannot appreciate this distinction so as not to apply the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for subsequent years merely on account of the change of the Bank where such deposits were made by the respondent assessee, all other facts remaining the same, particularly the nature and character of the income earned by it. The interest income of assessee continues to be not attributable to its business operations even in these subsequent years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that a co- ordinate bench of this Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals by referring, but not applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we observe with greatest respects that we do not find any detailed discussion of the facts and law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the respondent assessee in the said order passed by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, we are unable to follow the same in the face of the binding precedent laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find in paragraph 8 of the said order passed by a co- ordinate bench that the learned Judges have observed that "the issue whether a co- operative bank is considered to be a co- operative society is no longer res integra, for the said issue has been decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal itself in different cases…………..". No other binding precedent was discussed in the said judgment. Of course, the Bench has observed that a Co-operative Bank is a specie of the genus co- operative Society, with which we agree, but as far as applicability of Section 80P(2) of the Act is concerned, the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision cannot be restricted only if the income was to fall under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

In our opinion, it would not make a difference, whether the interest income is earned from investments/deposits made in a Scheduled Bank or in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the said decision of the Co- ordinate Bench is distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present appeals, in view of the binding precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. In Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 21/182 Taxman 287 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case falling under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act also negatived the claim of this special deduction to a co-operative society, while holding that the income derived by the Co-operative Society from the letting of the godowns or the warehouses was eligible for this deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act only if such income was derived by such letting of godowns and warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. Where the rental income was derived by the assessee, where the income claimed as deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act was by way of netting/difference between the sale of own trade stock stored in such warehouses or godowns was claimed as deductible, the Hon'ble Supreme Court denied the said claim, holding that the burden was on the assessee to establish that the income comes within the four corners of Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment from the Head Note is quoted below for ready reference:

The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held as under: "(ii) That the assessee did not carry on any banking business and its objects did not contemplate investment of surplus funds received from its members. The business of a credit society like that of the assessee was limited to providing credit to its members and the income that was earned by providing such credit facilities to its members was deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The character of interest was different from the income attributable to the business of the assessee- society providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income

Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat High Court, distinguishing the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, held in the following terms:

Mr. Bansal relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. A. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 516 (AP). The judgment is distinguishable. In that case, the respondent-assessee was a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and it was held that the assessees were subject to the regulations of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Division Bench distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Totgar's case (supra) on the ground that the Supreme Court was not dealing with the case relating to co-operative banks. The present appeal is not being considered on the basis that banking is the assessee's business either.

Mr. Bansal relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karn). In that case, the assessee-co-operative society provided credit facilities to its members and earned interest from short- term deposits with banks and from savings bank accounts. The interest income earned by the assessee by providing credit facilities to its members was deposited in banks for a short duration which earned interest. The question was whether this interest was attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to the members. The Division Bench held as follows : "8. Therefore, the word 'attributable to' is certainly wider in import than the expression 'derived from'. Whenever the Legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning, they have used the expression 'derived from'. The expression 'attributable to' being of wider import, the said expression is used by the Legislature whenever they intended to gather receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business. A co-operative society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate business for earning such interest income. The income so derived is the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under section 80P of the Act.

In this context when we look at the judgment of the apex court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., on which reliance is placed, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the assessee- co-operative society, apart from providing credit facilities to the members, was also in the business of marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. The sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members was retained in many cases. The said retained amount which was payable to its members from whom produce was brought, was invested in a short-term deposit/security. Such an amount which was retained by the assessee-society was a liability and it was shown in the balance-sheet on the liability side. Therefore, to that extent, such interest income can not be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore in the facts of the said case, the apex court held the Assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income indicated above under section 56 of the Act. Further they made it clear that they are confining the said judgment to the facts of that case. Therefore it is clear, Supreme Court was not laying down any law.

In the instant case, the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any members. It was not the liability. It was not shown as liability in their account. In fact this amount which is in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. A. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in [2011] 336 ITR 516 (AP) ; [2011] 200 Taxman 220/12 taxmann.com 66. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly it is hereby set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, we pass the following order. Appeal is allowed." (The reproduction is from the original website of the Karnataka High Court). There is an important distinction. The Division Bench expressly held in paragraph 10 that interest income was attributable to the business of banking and, therefore, liable to be deducted under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we have not considered whether the assessee carries on the business of banking. If it is established upon remand that the assessee carries on the business of banking the result may be different. In any event assuming that the judgment is not distinguishable on this ground, we would with respect disagree with the same in view of the judgments that we have already referred to and on the basis of our interpretation of Totgar's case. In any event, we are with respect unable to agree with the observations that the Supreme Court in Totgar's case (supra) did not lay down any law.

For the same reason, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 377 ITR 464 (Karn); [2015] 60 taxmann.com 215 (Karn) is of no assistance to the respondent-assessee.' 23. Thus, the aforesaid judgments supports the view taken by this Court that character of income depends upon the nature of activity for earning that income and though on the face of it, the same may appear to be falling in any of the specified Clauses of Section 80P(2) of the Act, but on a deeper analysis of the facts, it may become ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act. The case in Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. (supra) was that of Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative bank and thus, clause (d) of Section 80P(2) of the Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The person or body corporate from which such interest income is received will not change its character, viz. interest income not arising from its business operations, which made it ineligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserve to be allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee deserve to be dismissed.

The issue relating to the justifiability of the reassessment under Section 147/148 of the Act also becomes academic once the conclusion is arrived at that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act was not available to the assessee for these Assessment Years.

The substantial questions of law framed above are thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the income by way of interest earned by the assessee co-operative society during the Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-12 on the investments made in the co-operative bank are not eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and those of the assessee are dismissed. No order as to costs.’ Respectfully following the aforesaid detailed order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. I make it clear that the assessee is eligible for setting off of losses as per law.” (emphasis supplied) 11. From the above decision of the coordinate Bench, it is noticed that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the later judgment dated 16.6.2017 in the case of PCIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017] 83 taxmann.com 140 (Karnataka) for AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12 has decided in the issue in favour of the revenue wherein it is held that the person or body corporate from which such interest income is received will not change its character, viz. interest income not arising from its business operations, which made it ineligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The case in hand is also similar and the character of income will not change. Accordingly interest received on investments with cooperative bank as well as other banks shall be treated as income from other sources and it is not the business income of the assessee, therefore does not quality for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The next issue is with regard to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on other receipts of Rs.2,62,834 under different heads in the Profit & Loss account placed at page 89 of the Paper Book. The AO has not considered the nature of receipts and whether it is part and parcel of the business income of the assessee or not. The CIT(Appeals) has also not discussed this issue. Therefore, in my view, this issue should go back to the AO for examining the nature of receipts and whether it is connected to the regular business activity carried on by the assessee. This issue is accordingly remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case before the AO. If the AO finds the receipts are part and parcel of the business income of the assessee, the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to that extent. Accordingly this issue is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.