SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

Assessing Officer held that the interest income of Rs.6,48,075/- earned by Assessee from State Bank of India and Bank of India is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed interest income of Rs.6,48,075/- and added back to the total income of the Assessee. It is important to mention here that total deduction claimed by Assessee under section 80P(2)(a) was of Rs.26,28,869/-. Thus, out of Rs.26,28,869/-, Assessing Officer has disallowed only Rs.6,48,075/- and allowed remaining deduction u/s.80P(2)(a) of the Act. 3

Aggrieved by the addition, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagar’s Co- operative Sales Society Ltd, 322 ITR 283 [2010] and Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs. CIT 431 ITR 1 [2021]. Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made u/s.68 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

In this case, admittedly assessee had deposited Demonetized Currency of Rs.60,32,500/- in the Bank Account. Assessing Officer in the assessment order has admitted that the said cash was received by the Assessee from its Members. Thus, once it is established that cash deposited belong to the members of the society, no addition can be made in the hands of the Assessee Society. We find support from the order of ITAT Pune in the case of Bhagur Urban Credit Co- operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No.561/PUN/2022, for A.Y. 2017-18, dated 03-01-2023].No contrary decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has been brought to our notice by ld.DR for the Revenue. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we 4 & 1598/PUN/2025 [A] direct the ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.60,32,500/-. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the Assessee is allowed.

It is an admitted fact that Assessee had earned interest income of Rs.6,48,075/- from State Bank of India and Bank of India. The Assessing Officer had not allowed deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the said interest income. This issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee.

While the petitioners place strong reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Co- operative Bank Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 66/200 Taxman 200/336 ITR 516, the Revenue places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282/322 ITR 283. …………………… The case before the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.'s case (supra) was in respect of a co-operative credit society, which was also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. As seen from the facts disclosed in the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Totgars, from out of which the decision of the Supreme Court arose, the assessee was carrying on the business of marketing agricultural produce of the members of the society. It is also found from paragraph-3 of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.'s case (supra) that the business activity other than marketing of the agricultural produce actually resulted in net loss to the society. Therefore, it appears that the assessee in Totgars was carrying on some of the activities listed in clause (a) along with other activities. This is perhaps the reason that the assessee did not pay to its members the proceeds of the sale of their produce, but invested the same in banks. As a consequence, the investments were shown as liabilities, as they represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived from the investments made by retaining the monies belonging to the members cannot certainly be termed as profits and gains of business. This is why Totgar's struck a different note.

But, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the investment made by the petitioners in fixed deposits in nationalised banks, were of their own monies. If the petitioners had invested those amounts in fixed deposits in other co-operative societies or in the construction of godowns and warehouses, the respondents would have granted the benefit of deduction under clause (d) or (e), as the case may be.

The original source of the investments made by the petitioners in nationalised banks is admittedly the income that the petitioners derived from the activities listed in sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (a). The character of such income may not be lost, especially when the statute uses the expression "attributable to" and not any one of the two expressions, namely, "derived from" or "directly attributable to".

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed, and the order of the Assessing Officer, in so far as it relates to treating the interest income as something not allowable as a deduction under section 80P(2)(a), is set aside.”Unquote. 8.2 Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of AP & TS held that Interest Income earned by investing Income derived from Business of 6 & 1598/PUN/2025 [A] providing credit facilities, Loans by a Co-Operative Society was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) of the Act.

In the case of Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Limited, the Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society had deposited excess funds in the Banks or Institutions permitted by the Co-operative Societies Act. In that context, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., [2024] 301 Taxman 36 (Kerala) vide order dated 04.09.2024 has held as under : Quote “7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that arises for consideration before us must be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The permissible deduction that is envisaged under Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act for a Co-operative Society that is assessed to tax under the head of 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' is of the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of its activities. Thus, all amounts as can be attributable to the conduct of the specified businesses by a Co-operative Society will be eligible for the deduction envisaged under the statutory provision. The question that arises therefore is whether, merely because the assessee chooses to deposit its surplus profit in a permitted bank or financial institution, and earns interest on such deposits, such interest would cease to form part of its profits and gains attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members? In our view that question must be answered in the negative, since we cannot accept the contention of the Revenue that the interest earned on those deposits loses its character as profits/gains 7 attributable to the main business of the assessee. It is not as though the & 1598/PUN/2025 [A] assessee in the instant case had used the surplus amount [the profit earned by it] for an investment or activity that was unrelated to its main business, and earned additional income by way of interest or gain through such activity. The assessee had only deposited the profit earned by it in the manner mandated under Section 63 of the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional income by way of interest on the deposits made, it could only be seen as an enhancement of the profits and gains that it made from its principal activity of providing credit facilities to its members. The nature and character of the principal income [profits earned by the assessee from its lending activity] does not change merely because the assessee acted in a prudent manner by depositing that income in a bank, instead of keeping it in hand. The provisions of the I.T. Act cannot be seen as intended to discourage prudent financial conduct on the part of an assessee.” Unquote 9.1 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that the character of income does not change. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that interest earned from deposits in permitted banks will be eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court’s decision is dated 04.09.2024 means, after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A.Y.2017-18 is allowed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A.Y.2018-19 is allowed.

To sum up, both appeal of the Assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th January, 2026.