BIJAPUR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2865/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 March 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to examine the facts of the present case in light of two conflicting High Court judgments and decide accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative credit society, claimed deduction for interest income earned from term deposits. The CIT(A) disallowed this deduction, relying on a Karnataka High Court judgment. The assessee argued that the facts of their case were different and cited another High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a co-operative credit society from bank deposits is deductible under Section 80P, and whether the deductibility depends on whether the deposits are out of business liabilities or own funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d)

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-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep .C, CA
For Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 21.03.2018Pronounced: 23.03.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Hubli dated 18.09.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is prejudicial to theinterests of the appellant. is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the interest income earned from the term deposits in the banks as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that the same cannot be attributable to business of providing credit facilities to the members.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the interest income earned from Co- operative Banks as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act even though the Co-operative Bank is registered as a Co-operative Society under Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

Each of the above ground is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or modify otherwise any of the ground either before the hearing or at the time of hearing this appeal.”

3.

It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16.06.2017 rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society as reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karn). He submitted that the facts of this case are different and therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. He submitted that in the present case, another judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 230 Taxman 309 is applicable and therefore, the matter should be restored back to AO or CIT (A) for fresh decision by following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). At this juncture, bench wanted to know regarding the facts of the present case because the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in both these cases i.e. PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) are on the same line but the conclusion is different because the facts are different. The bench pointed out that in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra), the money deposited in bank is liability of the assessee and in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra), the money deposited in bank was not out of liability but assessee’s own funds and therefore, the decision is in favour of the assessee. The bench pointed out that if the facts in the present case are similar to that of the facts in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), then the issue should be decided against the assessee. If the facts of the assessee are similar to that of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) then the issue is to be decided in favour of the assessee. In reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the facts are not readily available and therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these

two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR of revenue also agreed to this proposition put forward by the ld. AR of assessee.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions and I feel it proper that the matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) and if it is found that the facts of the present case are in line with the facts of the PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) then the issue may be decided against the assessee and if the facts of the present case are in line with the facts in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) then the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) should pass necessary order as per law in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →