THE GOKUL URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(5), PANAJI

आदेश / ORDER

PER BENCH : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 13.12.2022 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

2 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned five appeals of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.31/PAN/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 for adjudication as the lead case.

ITA No.31/PAN/2023, A.Y. 2013-14 : 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1) GROUND 1 The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned CIT (Appeals) of the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the same and both the orders are against the facts of the case and the prevailing legal position. 2) GROUND 2 In any case, the objections raised by the appellant for reasons recorded were not disposed off by passing a speaking order which makes the entire reassessment proceedings bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. The learned assessing officer did not pass any order on the objections of the

3 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

appellant nor did the learned CIT (Appeals) consider the issue in correct perspective and in the light of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts. 3) GROUND 3 The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) of the appellant and the learned CIT (Appeals) of the National Faceless Appeals Centre erred in confirming the same despite being bound by the latest decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. 4) GROUND 4 The learned Assessing Officer erred in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) of the appellants on the sole ground that the appellants have themselves disallowed the claim while filing declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 which was wrongly confirmed by learned CIT (Appeals). The appellant had not claimed deduction u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) based on then prevailing uncertain legal position in 2016, now that the legal positions has well settled, the appellants are entitled to deduction u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) it ought to have been allowed by the learned assessing officer and learned CIT (Appeals) 5) GROUND 5 The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80 (P) (2) (a) (i)/ 80P (2) (d) in respect of interest earned from deposits with all banks/Co-operative banks and the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the same although the claim of deduction of the appellant is based on the decisions of the jurisdictional honourable ITAT Panaji which decision is binding on the learned assessing officer and the learned CIT (Appeals).

4 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

6) GROUND 6 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering submissions of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act in respect of the cost incurred towards earning the interest on deposits with banks which has been assessed u/s 56 of the income Tax Act. 7) GROUND 7 In any case, without prejudice, the authorities below have erred is not accepting the income as returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and erred in making/confirming the disallowances. The action of the authorities below being contrary to facts and law is to be negated and income as returned by the appellant is to be accepted. 8) GROUND 8 The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 9) GROUND 9 The appellant also denies liability to pay interest levied under various sections, the interest having been levied erroneously needs to be deleted. 10) GROUND 10 In view of the above and on other grounds and arguments to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) be allowed to the appellant on entire income, the addition made under sec 56 in respect bank interest on deposits, disallowance of deduction u/s 80P (2) (a) (i) be deleted and the deduction u/s 80P (2) (d) on interest from co-operative banks on deposits be allowed and alternatively deduction u/s 57 towards cost for earing interest on deposits be allowed interest levied under various sections be deleted.”

5 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

6 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

that the assessee has disclosed an amount of Rs.48,96,658/- (consisting of profit of Rs. 48,24,658/- as per audited P & L Account & rental income of Rs.72,000/-) under IDS 2016 Scheme and paid the taxes accordingly for which Form 4 was also issued by the concerned PCIT. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee society has debited an amount of Rs.1,86,71,000/- as provisions under various heads which is not allowable, accordingly after following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) the same was added to the income of the assessee along-with profit of Rs.48,24,658/- as per profit & loss account and rental income of Rs.72,000/- disclosed by the assessee, however, the Assessing Officer allowed benefit of income of Rs.48,96,658/- already disclosed by the assessee under IDS 2016 Scheme. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.03.2022, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the

7 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

income of the assessee at Rs.1,86,71,000/- as against income of Rs.Nil returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,86,71,000/- being disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Not being satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities in other words doing banking business and the income which is attributable to the banking business in the hands of a credit cooperative society is deductible u/s

8 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. We further find that the Assessing Officer while referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT, Civil Appeal Nos.7343-7350 of 2019 (SC) and also the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society vs. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. In this regard, we find that in the judgement of The Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. (supra), section 80P(4) of the IT Act has been referred, according to which, cooperative banks are not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act with regard to banking business income, however, primary credit cooperative society are entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act with regard to banking business income and also entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act with regard to interest income earned from its investments with other cooperative banks, which are also cooperative societies.

9 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

Regarding reliance of the Assessing Officer in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society (supra), we find that the facts are distinguishable and not applicable to the instant case in hand, since the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society was engaged in the activity of sale of agricultural produce of its members whereas in the instant case in hand, the assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members and this issue is no more res integra in the light of various coordinate bench decisions passed in the case of various other credit cooperative societies including the case of Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmachari Sahkari Patsanstha vs. PCIT & others in ITA No.102/PUN2020 & others order dated 21.12.2022 wherein the Tribunal held that the assessee credit cooperative societies are entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act with regard to interest income arising from its investment with nationalized banks and from cooperative banks by observing as under :-

10 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

“All the above appeals have been preferred by different assessees in relation to the A.Yrs.2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 agitating the passing of the order by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income- tax (PCIT) u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 holding that the grant of deduction u/s.80P by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of interest income earned from other credit cooperative societies or Nationalised banks led to the passing of erroneous assessment orders prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Because of the commonness of the issue, we are proceeding to dispose of all the appeals by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. xxxxx 4. Succinctly, the facts common in all these cases are that the assesses filed returns claiming deduction u/s.80P in respect of interest income which was allowed by the respective AOs. The ld. PCIT(s) invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and disputed the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) in some cases and under 80P(2)(d) in others, thereby holding the assessment orders to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Aggrieved thereby, the assessees have approached the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that all the cases are based on the ld. PCIT(s)’ understanding that the allowing of the deduction by the AO(s) u/s 80P is contrary to law. Insofar as the allowability of deduction u/s.8P(2)(a)(i) is concerned, we find that the Pune Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA No.713/PUN/2016) has decided the question of availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by noticing that the Pune Bench in an earlier case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO (ITA No.604/PN/2014) has allowed similar deduction. In the said case, the Tribunal discussed the contrary views expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 230 Taxman 309 (Kar.) allowing deduction u/s. 80P on interest income and that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mantola Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 110

11 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

DTR 89 (Delhi) not allowing deduction u/s.80P on interest income earned from banks. Both the Hon’ble High Courts took into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (supra). No direct judgment from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the point having been pointed out, the Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) preferred to go with the view in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra). The position continues to remain the same before this Tribunal also. We thus hold that no exception can be taken to the granting of deduction on interest income by the AO u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6. Coming to the other cases involving deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, it is crystal clear from the language of the provision that though co-operative banks, other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, are not eligible for deduction pursuant to insertion of section 80P(4) w.e.f. 1.4.2007, but this provision does not dent the otherwise eligibility u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of a co- operative society on interest income on investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank, which is a registered co-operative society as per section 2(19) of the Act, defining co-operative society to mean a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any law for the time being in force. The assessees are also Co-operative society registered under the Act and hence qualify for the grant of the deduction. Similar view has been taken by the Pune Tribunal in several cases including The Sesa Goa Employees Coop. Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.203/PUN/2019) vide order dated 16-11-2022). 7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned orders questioning the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income, cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.”

12 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

“11.7 Thus, under the constitutional scheme and the doctrine of judicial discipline, the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal, while decisions of other Hon'ble High Courts carry persuasive value and may be followed in the absence of a contrary jurisdictional precedent. Hence in our considered view, while deciding the issue of deductibility of interest income from deposit of surplus/idle fund by the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities, we are bound to follow the principles laid down in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra), unless material brought on record that the said principle/finding has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the larger bench of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court or disturbed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in subsequent case. 11.8 Coming to facts of the case on the hand, the assessee is engaged solely in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income of Rs. 6,25,661/- has been earned on deposits made out of funds arising from business operations, which were not immediately required for lending. Such deposits are part of normal business activity and cannot be treated as independent investment activity.

13 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

11.9 Before parting, it is equally important to note that in several earlier decisions, this Tribunal had taken a view that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits placed with banks would not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was liable to be taxed under the head "Income from other sources". Accordingly, the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of such interest income was rejected in those cases. However, the legal position now stands clarified by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra), and other case laws as discussed in preceding paragraphs wherein it has been held that where a cooperative society, engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, temporarily parks its surplus funds with banks, the interest earned therefrom is attributable to the business of the society and is therefore eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 12. Since the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is binding on this Tribunal, judicial discipline requires that the same be followed. Therefore, to the extent of our earlier decisions where we have taken a contrary view, we respectfully depart from the earlier stand and follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the issue is now decided in favour of the assessee by granting deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest income in question. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed.”

14 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

coordinate bench decision passed in the case of Mysore University Employees co-op Credit Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2026] 185 taxmann.com 709 (Bangalore - Trib.) [15-04-2026], we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cooperative society is also entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act with regard to its income which is attributable to banking business. 11. Apart from above, we also find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed various provisions and added to the income of the assessee and benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act has not been allowed on the resultant enhanced income. In this regard, we find that CBDT issued Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein directions were issued to allow benefit of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act on enhanced business income. The relevant circular is reproduced as under :-

ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

17 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

18 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

However, we make it clear that the assessee credit cooperative society is not entitled to get refund of the income tax and interest, which was deposited by the assessee under IDS 2016 Scheme. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.31/PAN/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 is allowed.

ITA Nos.32 to 35/PAN/2023, A.Ys. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2018-19 : 14. Since the facts and issues involved in the remaining appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.32 to 35/PAN/2023, for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2018-19 are identical to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.31/PAN/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, our decision in ITA No.31/PAN/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.32 to 35/PAN/2023, for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2018-19. Accordingly, the remaining appeals of the assessee in

19 ITA Nos.31 to 35/PAN/2023

ITA Nos.32 to 35/PAN/2023, for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2018-19 are also allowed. 15. To sum up, all the above captioned five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as indicated above. Order pronounced on this 21st day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 21st August, 2026. Sujeet Kumar Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.21 15:16:52 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.