Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P for assessment year 2014-2015. The Assessing Officer denied this deduction based on Section 80P(4), stating the assessee was carrying on banking business. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering merits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without addressing the merits. Citing a previous order in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 777/Mum/2025), the Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a bank, making Section 80P(4) inapplicable.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P when the Assessing Officer invoked Section 80P(4) treating it as a bank, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
Sections Cited
80P, 80P(4), 143(3), 194A(3)(v), 201(1), 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 09.03.2026 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 06/10/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/11/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. 1. 1. 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ("CIT(A)") erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of Rs.
2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("TTAT" Mumbai) in for the assessment year 2014-15, in the appellant's own case, wherein it was held that the appellant is a co-operative credit society and not a co- operative bank.
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the view of the assessing officer and failing to appreciate that the appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has also been allowed in earlier assessment years by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, in the appellant own case dated 26.02.2014. for the assessment year 2009-10 and, the CIT, Appeals, vide its order dated 30.09.2014 for the assessment year 2010-11.
4. That the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.”
3. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee, a Co-operative Society, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 29/11/2014 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 30/11/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the deducted claim by the Assessee under Section 80P of the Act by invoking provisions contained in Section 80P(4) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee was a Co-operative Society registered under Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act provided credit facilities to its members which amounted to carrying on business of banking. Therefore, the Assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act in terms of Section 80P(4) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before Learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings vide Letter, dated Assessment Year 2014-2015 14/06/2025, the Assessee sought time for filing written submissions. In the said letter the Assessee placed also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 [ITA No.7394/Mum/2012, dated 26/02/2014]. The Learned CIT(A) noted that a copy of the aforesaid decision was not furnished by the Assessee. Therefore, the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide Order, dated 06/10/2025, observing that despite seeking adjournments the Assessee had failed to file submissions and/or provide a copy of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.
Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee on technical ground without returning any findings on merits. It was further submitted that in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2014-2015 [ITA No.777/Mum/2025, dated 06/10/2025], the Tribunal had held that Assessee is a Co-operative Society (and not a Co- operative Bank) and therefore, Section 80P(4) of the Act would have no application to the case of the Assessee. Thus, the Assessee was eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act.
The Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, on which reliance was placed by the Authorized Representative for the Assessee was passed on 06/10/2025. It was submitted that the Learned CIT(A) did not have the benefit of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We are of the view that the Order, dated 3 Assessment Year 2014-2015 06/10/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee cannot be sustained since the Learned CIT(A) has not dealt with the grounds raised by the Assessee on merits. Further, we note that vide Order, dated 06/10/2025, passed in (related to Assessment Year 2014-2015), the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Noida in relation to order dated 31/03/2021 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. While dealing with the applicability in Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act read with Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, the Tribunal held that the Assessee was not a bank but merely a credit cooperative society. Therefore, we set aside the Order, dated 06/10/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal filed before Learned CIT(A) afresh after taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and after granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since we have restored the issue back to the file of the Learned CIT(A), all the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. Thus, Ground No.1 and 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes while Ground No.2 and 3 are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at the present stage.
In terms of Paragraph 8 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 09.03.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (Bijayananda Pruseth) (Rahul Chaudhary) Accountant Member Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 09.03.2026 Milan, LDC 4