DAHADAYA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD. ,PURBA MEDINIPUR. vs. ITO,WARD-27(1),HALDIA. , HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 863/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 February 2025AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with specific directions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the society is required to comply with the Co-operative Act and keep funds with banks and government securities. It observed that the assessee's total investments amounted to ₹20.22 crores, which, according to the Tribunal, were made out of surplus funds as per Section 64 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, and thus should be treated as income from business activities. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in M/s Bishpur Rowtara Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The AO was directed to treat interest from savings accounts in terms of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. South Eastern Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. If interest income on investments with nationalized banks is treated as income from other sources, the AO should determine corresponding expenses and allow deductions as per the decision in M/s Panditpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. ITO. Interest from investments made as per Section 65 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, is to be treated as business income, following the decision in Rabindra Bharati University Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The appeal for AY 2020-21 was decided mutatis mutandis.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dahadaya Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., is a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. It filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 and 2020-21. The core dispute concerns the denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income earned from nationalized banks. For AY 2018-19, the assessee declared a nil total income after claiming exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer (AO) added back interest of ₹5,22,601/- earned from nationalized banks, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, holding that interest from nationalized banks was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The appeal for AY 2020-21 involves a similar issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interest income of ₹5,22,601/- earned from nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income derived from the business of providing credit facilities to its members. 2. Whether the interest income earned on investments with nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that it is a primary agricultural credit co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. It also argued that it is required to keep part of its funds with banks and government securities as per the Co-operative Act, and investments made out of surplus funds should be treated as income from business activities. The assessee relied on various decisions of the Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the AO and CIT(A), contended that interest received from nationalized banks is not income from the society's primary business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, it is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A) further held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not available as the interest was earned from nationalized banks and not co-operative banks.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 64,Section 63,Section 65

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, CIT DR
Hearing: 10.02.2025Pronounced: 24.02.2025
2.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of interest of ₹5,22,601/- earned from nationalized banks, thereby holding that interest received from the schedule bank is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee neither entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) nor u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest earned on investments with banks and from Government securities. The ld. CIT (A) held that in the present case, the interest was received by the assessee society from investments with the nationalized banks and not from the investments with the co-operative banks and therefore, deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) was not available. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that the interest earned from investments in nationalized banks was not an income from the business activities

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the assessee is primarily agricultural credit co-operative society engaged in providing credit facility to its members and also engaged in purchase of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides for agricultural operations for its members. I observe from the balance sheet of the assessee, a copy of which is available at page no.3 of the Paper Book, which contain the information as to the various resources available with the society. I note that the assessee has paid up share capital of ₹49.49 lacs while reserve and other funds were 198.37 lacs, Grants , other funds ₹88.69 lacs and deposits were and 42.20 crores. I also note that the assessee is required to comply with the stipulations and conditions under the Co-operative Act and keep part of its funds with the banks and government securities. I note that the assessee’s total investments out of these funds were ₹20.22 crores. In our opinion, these are the investments as per section 64 read with section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2022, out of the surplus funds and therefore has to be treated as income of the assessee from business activities. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s Bishpur Rowtara Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in for A.Y. 2018-19, wherein the co- ordinate Bench has held as under:-

“7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find merit in the three fold submissions made by the assessee as discussed hereinabove. Accordingly we deem it fit and proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide these issues in terms of our following directions: i) interest from saving accounts should be allowed u/s 80P in terms of decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. South Eastern Railway i. To treat the interest from savings accounts in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. South Eastern Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (supra). ii. If the interest income on investments with nationalized banks is to be treated as income from other sources, then corresponding expenses may be determined and allowed in terms of decision of M/s Panditpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. ITO (supra). iii. Interest from investments is to be treated as business income if made as per section 65 read with section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, in terms of decision of Rabindra Bharati University Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra).

7.

Accordingly, with above observations, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the same in terms of the above directions after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

8.

The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in A.Y. 2018-19. Accordingly, our decision would apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal of assessee in as well. Hence, the appeal of assessee in for A.Y. 2020-21 is allowed for statistical purpose.

9.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2025.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →