PANDIT DINDAYAL UPADHYAY NAGARI SAH. PATPEDHI LTD.,NANDURBAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another us. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 Bom HC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC held that 'It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.'

Turning to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that the legal issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered in assessce's favour for the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Juri ictional High Court, Kerala High Court and several orders passed by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal on this score. As against the situation in Anil Kumar Nehru (SC) in which the question of law was yet to be decided, we are confronted with a situation in which the question of law involved in the present set of appeals has already been decided in favour of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay crept before the Id. CIT(A) and allow the appeals on merits.”

In this case, admittedly Assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society engaged in the business of providing loans to the Members and accepting deposits from Members. In this case, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that interest income of Rs.4,84,724/- was not attributable to the business of the Assessee.

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 Totagar’s Cooperative Sale Society, and held as under :

While the petitioners place strong reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative 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. ……………………

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 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.

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.

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".

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.

1 Thus, 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/s.80P(2)(a) of the Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1(SC) observed as under : Quote.“Further, section 80P(4) is to be read as a proviso, which proviso now specifically excludes co-operative banks which are cooperative - societies engaged in banking business i.e. engaged in lending money to members of the public, which have a licence in this behalf from the RBI.” Unquote.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank 251 ITR 194 (SC) vide order dated 22.08.2001 has held as under : Quote“6..…………………There is no doubt, and it is not disputed, that the assessee-co-operative bank is required to place a part of its funds with the State Bank or the Reserve Bank of India to enable it to carry on its banking business. This being so, any income derived from funds so placed arises from the business carried on by it and the assessee has not, by reason of section 80P(2)(a)(i), to pay income-tax thereon. The placement of such funds being imperative for the purposes of carrying on the banking business, the income derived therefrom would be income from the assessee's business.” Unquote.

In the case of Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Limited, the Sahyadri Co- operative Credit Society had deposited excess funds in the Banks or Institutions permitted by the Co-operative Societies Act. In that context, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., [2024] 301 Taxman 36 (Kerala) vide order dated 04.09.2024 has held as under : Quote “7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that arises for consideration before us must be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The permissible deduction that is envisaged under Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act for a Co-operative Society that is assessed to tax under the head of 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' is of the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of its activities. Thus, all amounts as can be attributable to the conduct of the specified businesses by a Co-operative Society will be eligible for the deduction envisaged under the statutory provision. The question that arises therefore is whether, merely because the assessee chooses to deposit its surplus profit in a permitted bank or financial institution, and earns interest on such deposits, such interest would cease to form part of its profits and gains attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members? In our view that question must be answered in the negative, since we cannot accept the contention of the Revenue that the interest earned on those deposits loses its character as profits/gains attributable to the main business of the assessee. It is not as though the assessee in the instant case had used the surplus amount [the profit earned by it] for an investment or activity that was unrelated to its main business, and earned additional income by way of interest or gain through such activity. The assessee had only deposited the profit earned by it in the manner mandated under Section 63 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional income by way of interest on the deposits made, it could only be seen as an enhancement of the profits and gains that it made from its principal activity of providing credit facilities to its members. The nature and character of the principal income [profits earned by the assessee from its lending activity] does not change merely because the assessee acted in a prudent manner by depositing that income in a bank, instead of keeping it in hand. The provisions of the I.T. Act cannot be seen as intended to discourage prudent financial conduct on the part of an assessee.” Unquote

In the case of the Assessee, the interest income of Rs.4,84,724/- was attributable to business of the assessee.

1 Respectfully, following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts, we hold that Rs.4,84,724/- is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed.”