Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER BENCH:
All the above appeals have been preferred by different assessees in relation to the A.Y.2017-18 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.
In two appeals, there is a delay of 4 days (ITA No. 368/PUN/2022) and 12 days (ITA No. 391/PUN/2022) in presenting the appeals before the Tribunal. Prima-facie, the delay pertains to the covid-19 pandemic period prevailed across the country. Therefore, the said delay is condoned, admitting the appeals for disposal of merits, by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314.
5 80P group
Succinctly, the facts 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 AO. The ld. PCIT 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). Aggrieved thereby, the assessees have approached the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. Insofar as the allowability of deduction u/s.8P(2)(a)(i) is concerned, we find that the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA No.713/PUN/2016) 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
6 80P group 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 (supra). The position continues to remain the same before this Tribunal also.
Reliance of the ld. Pr. CIT in some of the cases under consideration on the decision of Pr. CIT and Another Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sales Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar.) is not relevant. The issue in that case was the eligibility of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest earned by the assessee co- operative society on investments made in co-operative banks. In that case, the assessee was engaged in the activity of marketing agricultural produce by its members; accepting deposits from its members and providing credit facility to its members; running stores, rice mills, live stocks, van section, medical shops, lodging,
7 80P group plying and hiring of goods and carriage etc. It was in that background of the facts that the Hon’ble High Court held that the assessee could not claim deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. When we consider the effect of this decision, it turns out that the same is not germane to case under consideration in view of the position that the primary claim of the extant assessee is directly about the eligibility of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Coming to the cases of eligibility of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d), the respective assessees are Cooperative credit societies engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The ld. PCIT has held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue only on the ground that the claim of deduction u/s.80P on interest income was not in order. In this regard, it is observed 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
8 80P group to mean a co-operative 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.
Similar view has been taken by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in several cases including The Sesa Goa Employees Coop.
Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.203/PUN/2019, order dated 16-11-2022).
In view of the fact that the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in series of decisions have held that the assessees are entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income, we hold that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. All the orders are, therefore, overturned.
In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th December, 2022.