CIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SHIVALIK KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/595/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084719200902 February 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the revenue's appeals. The Court relied on its own prior judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., [2003] 263 ITR 320. In that case, it was held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is admissible on interest income earned from investments in Government securities, debentures, bonds, Kisan Vikas Patras, and C.D. of IDBI. The Court had reasoned that such investments were statutory in nature, in accordance with Section 44 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and therefore eligible for deduction. The Court noted that the Special Leave Petition against the Nawanshahar judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a similar appeal filed by the revenue against the same assessee (ITA No. 314 of 2005) had already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on August 1, 2006. Consequently, the present appeals were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (appellant-revenue) filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 594, 595, and 596 of 2009) against a common order dated April 16, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and challenged the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the revenue's appeals. The assessee is M/s Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshiarpur. The core of the dispute revolves around the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on interest earned by the bank from certain investments.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the revenue's appeal on the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from the investment of surplus reserves, where such investment is not governed by any statutory provisions for carrying on the business of banking? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the revenue's appeal on the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from the utilization of voluntary reserves other than statutory reserves, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mehsana District Co-op Bank Ltd. v. ITO? Contentions of the Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, it implies the assessee sought deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from investments. Contentions of the Revenue: The revenue argued that deduction under Section 80P should be disallowed on interest earned from surplus reserves and voluntary reserves, as these investments were not statutory or directly related to the banking business. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mehsana District Co-op Bank Ltd. v. ITO, 251 ITR 522, to support its argument regarding voluntary reserves.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 594 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 2, 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar …Appellant Versus M/s Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshiarpur …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. By this order we propose to dispose of ITA Nos. 594, 595 and 596 of 2009 because the same have been filed under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the common order dated 16.4.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA Nos. 107 to 109 (ASR)/2009, in respect of As- sessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05. The following questions of law have been sought to be raised for determination of this Court:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned on investment of surplus re- serve where such investment is not governed by any statutory provisions for carrying on the business of Banking? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from utilisation of voluntary

ITA No. 594 of 2009 reserves other than statutory reserves when Hon’ble the Su- preme Court has set aside the similar issue to the file of CIT (A) in the case of Mehsana District Co-op Bank Ltd. v. ITO, 251 ITR 522?” The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., [2003] 263 ITR 320, has held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on account of interest income on Government securities, debentures, bonds, Kisan Vikas Patras and C.D. of IDBI was admissible. The investment in the said bonds has been held to be statutory investment in accordance with Sec- tion 44 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and, thus, eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The view taken by the Tribu- nal is in accordance with the above judgment of this Court. It is also conceded position that the Special Leave Petition against the aforementioned judgment of this Court, has been dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Moreover, a Di- vision Bench of this Court has already dismissed a similar appeal, bearing ITA No. 314 of 2005, on 1.8.2006, which was filed by the appellant-revenue against the assessee-respondent. Accordingly, these appeals fails and the same are dis- missed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all the con- nected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) February 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →