KUTCH DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,ANJAR - KUTCH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

However, we note that in the computation of total income, the Assessing Officer by mistake took the figure at Rs.5,87,74,816/-, instead of correct figure of Rs.5,85,74,816/-. We state that correct figure, as per the findings of the Assessing Officer should be at Rs.5,85,74,816/-.

Considering the above facts, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs.PCIT- 1, Rajkot in for A.Y. 1218-19, wherein the issue relating to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, in respect of Page | 2 -114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. interest received from the Co-operative Society/Co-Operative Bank have been adjudicated in favour of assessee and it was held that assessee can claim the deduction, u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these two present appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid order (supra) of Tribunal. Copy of this order is also placed before the Bench.

On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue fairly agreed with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that issue under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra). Nonetheless, Ld. CIT-DR also relied on the findings of Assessing Officer.

We see no reason to take any other view of the matter then the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 31.07.2024, in this order, the Division Bench of this Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows:

During the course of hearing, ld Counsel for the assessee, clarified the Bench that assessee, by mistake, wrongly submitted, in the written submission, before the ld. PCIT, as if, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Act, in respect of amount ofRs.18,41,436/- and Rs.52,350/-, in fact, the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs.18,41,436/- and amounting toRs.52,350/-, respectively, as stated above. Thus, we note that ld. PCIT has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, mainly on the amount of Rs.Rs.18,41,436/-and Rs.52,350/-, as narrated above, and ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to examine the dividend income, if the dividend income is earned by the assessee from Co-operative Bank. Therefore, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to disallow the interest and dividend income earned from Co-operative Bank, which, as per ld PCIT, are not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

We note that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine investments, advances, loans, unsecured loans, deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The findings of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, are reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S. No. Issues i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Unsecured Loans iii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19 on 13.08.2018, vide acknowledgment no.108456181130818, reflecting Gross Total Income Rs.43,36,723/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Returned income is declared NIL. The same is processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter mentioned Act).

Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued on 22.09.2019 and thereafter notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued.

In response to the notices issued, the assessee society has furnished all the relevant details called for. The same has been perused carefully and found to be in order.

In view of the above facts of the case and after considering the details furnished, the total income returned by the assessee is accepted.”

From the above assessment order, it is vivid with that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.11.2020, which is placed at assessee`s paper page No.15, and response to the said notice of 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted its reply, dated 01.12.2020, which is placed at paper book page No. 17 to 23. Therefore, no doubt, that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer called the details from the assessee to examine the deduction claimed by the assessee, under -114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, hence, details has been called by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings, and these details were examined by the assessing officer, pertaining to issue raised by the ld PCIT, relating to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, that is, the solitary issue raised by the ld PCIT, that interest received from Co-operative Banks are not allowed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In this regard, the ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that since during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer had examined the issue raised by the ld PCIT and has taken the plausible view, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence order passed by the ld PCIT, under section 263 of the Act, may be quashed.

However, we do not agree with the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, to the effect that the assessing officer has examined the issue raised by the ld PCIT, by calling the details from the assessee, and has taken the plausible view. We note that just to call the details by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act and in response to that notice submission made by the assessee and assessing officer, having examined the details filed by the assessee, took the plausible view, is not sufficient. Over and above, such exercise narrated above, the order passed by the assessing officer, should be sustainable in the eye of law.

Hence, we have to examine, whether order passed by the assessing officer, in the assessee’s case under consideration is sustainable in the eye law. Therefore, we find merit in the submissions of the ld. D.R. for the Revenue to the effect that by way of issuing notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and reply of the assessee against the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, and then examination by the assessing and taking the plausible view, is not sufficient. The ld. D.R. for the Revenue stated that in the assessee’s case under consideration, assessing officer cannot take a plausible view specially when there is a judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 602 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that interest received from co- operative banks and other banks are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reason being, the assessing officer ignored the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Katlary Karyana (Supra). Therefore, ld. D.R. stated that the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence the ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction as per clause (d) of explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, as per ld. DR. for the Revenue the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We note that arguments advanced by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue carries weight and he has rightly stated that order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We also agree that during the assessment proceedings just to call the details by issuing notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and in response to that submission of the details by the assessee and then examining the same by assessing officer (AO) and having examined the same, assessing officer takes plausible view, is not sufficient. However, that plausible view should be sustainable in the eyes of law, as there is direct judgement on the issue under consideration by the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Katlary Karyana (Supra).

In order to find the answer of the question that plausible view taken by the assessing officer (AO) should be sustainable in the eye of law, we have to take guidance from the judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, and for that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer’s order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue “unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”.

Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let us examine the issue under consideration. We agree with the ld. D.R. for the Revenue that just to collect the details during the assessment proceedings by issuing notice 142(1) of the Act, and furnishing of the details by the assessee, in response to that notice, and then after examination of the issue by AO and then to take a plausible view, by assessing officer is not sufficient, as we have noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malavar Industries Ltd. (supra) has clearly pointed out that the view taken by the assessing officer, should be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in these circumstances, we have to examine whether it was necessary for the assessing officer to accept the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court has noted that interest from Co-operative banks and other banks are not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Since it is the judgement of the Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat, therefore, assessing officer should not take a plausible view specially when there is a judgment of jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, we have to examine whether judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is applicable to the assessee’s case under consideration or not.

We find that in section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961, there is no special exclusion that interest received from co-operative bank is not eligible for Page | 9 -114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. deduction. We have noted that definition of “co-operative society” as mentioned in section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not make any exclusion about co-operative bank. We note that in order to become a co-operative bank, the first condition is that it should be a co-operative society. Therefore, a co-operative society, later on decides to take license from the Reserve Bank of India to do banking business wherein the Co-operative society may lend the money and borrow the money, and for that purpose, the co-operative society has to take a license from the Reserve Bank of India and after taking license from the Reserve Bank of India said Co-operative society, becomes a co-operative bank also, which was first a co-operative society. We also find that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is in the context of a specific definition mentioned in section 194A of the Act, therefore, the judgement delivered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is in a different context. Besides the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) is in the context of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act wherein the Hon’ble Court has examined whether income has escaped assessment or not. Hence, this judgment is not binding precedent on the assessee where there are other direct judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court on the ‘issue’ under consideration, which we are going to discuss in the subsequent paragraphs of this order.

We note that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. In Tax Appeal No.473 of 2014 dated 16-06-2014 (Guj HC) held that interest received from the co-operative bank is allowable as a deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We also find that there is another judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 421 ITR 134 (Guj HC) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that interest received from co-operative bank is allowable deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the above judgments i.e. in case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court clearly held that interest received from Co- operative banks, are allowable as a deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. These two old judgments were not distinguished by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) i.e. the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat did not overrule and did not distinguish and reject the earlier judgments delivered by it in case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), in the case of the latest judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra). Therefore, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) has not overruled the ratio decided by it in the earlier judgments namely; (i) Sabarkantha District Co- operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra). Therefore, ratio of these old judgments namely;(i) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) will still be applicable to the assessee under consideration as these judgements never distinguished and never overruled by constituting a larger Bench by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court. Page | 10 -114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.

We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT 2016 389 ITR 578 (Guj. HC) has also held that any income by way of interest derived by a Co-operative society from its investment with any other Co-operative bank would be deductible u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

We also find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has recently modified the judgement delivered by it in Katlary Karayana (supra) on 26th April, 2024 by removing error in the judgment of Katlary Karayana (supra). The ld DR for the Revenue, informed the Bench that Hon`ble High Court has only removed the word “co-operative” from the reproduction of reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Hence it does not impact on the ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Court. Learned Counsel for the assessee, has also argued before the Bench and submitted written submission that there is no material modification done by the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra).

Therefore, we find that the assessing officer has taken the plausible view which is sustainable in the eyes of law i.e. the view taken by the assessing officer is not against the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra). Because, the assessing officer has taken the plausible view based on the old judgements of the jurisdictional, Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat, namely; (i) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) and the ratio of these old judgments namely; (i) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable to the assessee under consideration, as these judgements never distinguished and never overruled by constituting a larger Bench by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court. Hence, we find that the assessing officer has definitely taken a plausible view after examination of the issue under consideration which cannot be subject to revision by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act because the view taken by the assessing officer is sustainable in law. Therefore, the argument advanced by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue, to the effect that assessing officer has failed to make compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is not acceptable, as the assessing officer, has taken the view which is sustainable in the eye of law, based on the old judgements of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, which are direct judgements on the issue under consideration, hence, there is no violation of judicial discipline by the assessing officer.

Now, we have to deal other arguments of the ld. D.R. for the revenue one by one, are as follows: (i) The ld. D.R. for the Revenue argued that recently the Jurisdictional Tribunal, Rajkot in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali vs. PCIT, in for assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 5th April, 2014 wherein the Jurisdictional Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot has considered the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) and adjudicate the issue in favour of the assessee. In this context, we state that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra), no Page | 11 -114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. doubt, it is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, however, we note that it is not a speaking order. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench, in Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) did not narrate the facts properly and the facts narrated in Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) are not similar to the facts as that of the assessee under consideration. We also find that in the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra), there was no assistance from the A.R. of the assessee, as this order was heard by the Co-ordinate Bench ex parte and there is no representation by the A.R. of the assessee, therefore, the Bench was not informed about the correct ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra). The adjudication was done by the Co-ordinate Bench, based on written submission of assessee. Therefore, the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) is distinguishable on these facts, hence we do not accept the ratio laid down in the said decision.

We also state that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Banglore and Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur, have also followed the old judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, as noted above, and held that interest received from Cooperative Banks are allowable deduction under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act: (i) Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., in to 379/Bang/2023, dated 18.07.2023 (ii) Jhunjhunu Karya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., We also note that the other Hon’ble High Courts, in the following cases, have upheld the same view, as the view taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the old Judgments (supra), that interest received from Cooperative Banks are allowable deduction under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act: (i) Totagars Co-operative Sale, 79 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka)

Final word:

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

As the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra) and there is no change in facts and law and the Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings, of the Division Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, respectfully following the binding judgment of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra), we allow grounds raised by assessee in these two appeals.

In the result, both the appeals (ITA No.113 and 114/RJT/2015) of assessee are allowed.