MITRA KUNJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Appellant by : Shri Bupendra Shah Respondent by : Shri Nagnath Pasale Date of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 16.11.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21.

Mitra Kunj Co. Op. Housing Society a. “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in assessing the total income of Rs. 7,19,410/- as against returned income of 2,00,290/- and thereby made addition to the tune of Rs. 5,19,120/-. b. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC erred in disallowing deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d). c. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC has stated in the order that when Co-operative banks are registered with RBI for banking licenses, they lose the status of co- operative society. For registering with RBI for banking license to operate as a co-operative bank, the entity first should register itself as co-operative society. d. The Learned NFAC is not justified in altering section 80P(2)(d) by stating that "the interest received is not from a co-operative society that operates within a taluk of a Revenue District but from a multistate cooperative bank & State Apex Co-operative bank that operate in many states and in more than one taluk of a Revenue District" which does not form part of the proviso 80P(2)(d). e. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the addition by rejecting the ground of appeal

.”

3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a residential Co-operative Housing Society and its return of income was filed on 25.11.2021. It has claimed deduction u/s 8oP(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest of Rs. 5,19,119/- earned from co-operative banks during the year. The assessee’s claim was disallowed by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was also rejected by the AO vide order dated 10.01.2023.

Mitra Kunj Co. Op. Housing Society 4. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 28.01.2023. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed his appeal. 5. Before us the Ld. AR submitted the details of interest income received from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Banks and the Saraswat Co- operative Bank during the year in respect of which deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) has been claimed as under:

Sr. Name of co-operative bank Amount No.

Mitra Kunj Co. Op. Housing Society 6. We have heard the rival submissions and the facts of the case. On similar facts, various co-ordinate benches have decided the issue in favour of the assessees. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the Rekab Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under:

“7. In view of the above facts reported in the material placed as record it is evident that the assessee has received interest income of Rs.9,45,402/- (i.e. Rs.6,23,877 from FDR with Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank and Rs.3,21,525/- from FDR with Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd.) 8. On the similar facts and issued in the various decisions of the ITAT Mumbai Benches it is held that claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest earned from investment made in the co-operative bank is allowable. Some of the decisions of the ITAT where the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) was allowed on the interest earned from deposit with co-operative bank are as under: (i) Mittal Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Mum, W(125) (95) CPC, Bengaluru, (Ld. ADIT). (ii) Mittal Park Cooperative Housing Society Vs. ITO, Ward 25 (3)(1), Mumbai. (iii) Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs ITO 21(1)(2). ( iv) Aqua Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs ITO 21(1)(2). (v) Sea Green Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 21(3)(2). (vi) Lands' End Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs.ITO 16(1)(3). (vii) The Nutan Laxmi Chs Ltd. Mumbai Vs. ITO 19(2)(4). (viii) M/s Palmera Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 19(2).