NAGPUR DISTRICT SHALA KARMACHARI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

Relying on various decision it was argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

4. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering the submissions made by assessee and judgements relied upon. 2. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.22,52,959/- by denying benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of IT Act 1961 in respect to interest earned on deposits with Nationalized Bank and Co-operative Bank is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. The learned A.O and CIT(A) erred in not considering the settled position of law in respect to deduction allowable u/s 80P of IT Act 1961 in respect to interest earned on deposits with Nationalized Bank and Co-operative Bank and therefore orders passed are not in accordance with law. 4. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have held that entire income of assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of IT Act 1961 5. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

6. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.

8. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

which one of us, namely, the ld. JM is party) in which similar deduction has been allowed. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) has discussed the contrary views expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 230 taxmann 309 (Kar.) allowing the deduction u/s. 80P on interest income and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mantola Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 110 DTR 89 (Delhi) not allowing deduction u/s.80P on interest income, earned from banks under similar circumstances. Both the Hon’ble High Courts have taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. 322 ITR 283 (SC). There being no direct judgment from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the point, the Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) preferred to go with the view taken in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra). In the absence of their being any change in the legal position prevailing on this issue after the passing of the order by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) and host of other orders reiterating the similar view, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order in allowing deduction u/s.80P on the interest income” Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and allow ground No.1 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee.

6. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.”

11. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and in absence of any contradictory decision brought to our notice by the Ld. DR, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest from fixed deposits with nationalized banks. The grounds raised by the assessee are according allowed.”

10. Similarly we find that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal on similar grounds raised

by the Revenue in the case of MSEB Engineers Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., wherein the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, vide order dated 05/05/2016 held as under : Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the above issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this ITA, referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. The distinction mentioned in the grounds of appeal is not at all sustainable. We further find that this Tribunal again in the case of Chattisgarh Urban Sahakari Sanstha vide order dated 27.05.2015 has adjudicated similar issue as under:-

11. Upon careful consideration, we not that identical issue was the subject matter of consideration by ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench decision in the case of Dhanlaxmi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd (supra), in which one of us, learned Judicial Member, was a party. The concluding portion of the Tribunal’s decision is as under:

4. With this brief background, we have heard both the sides. It was explained that the Co-operative Society is maintaining “operations funds” and to meet any eventuality towards repayment of deposit, the Co-operative society is maintaining some liquidated funds as a short term deposit with the banks. This issue was thoroughly discussed by the ITAT “B” Bench Ahmedabad in the case of The Income Tax Officer vs. M/s.Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd., bearing (for A.Y. 2009-10) and CO No. 138/Ahd/2012 (by Assessee) order dated 31/10/2012. The relevant portion is reproduced below :- “19. The issue dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars (supra) is extracted, for appreciation of facts as under : What is sought to be taxed under section 56 of the Act is interest income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities, which surplus was not required for business purposes? The assesse(s) markets the produce of its members whose sale proceeds at times were retained by it. In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of such amount. Since the fund created by such retention was not required immediately for business purposes, it was invested in specified securities. The question before us, is whether interest on such deposits/securities, which strictly speaking accrues to the members’ account, could be taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of ‘income from other sources’ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” 19.1 However, in the present case, on verification of the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2009, it was observed that the fixed deposits made were to maintain liquidity and that there was no surplus funds with the assessee as attributed by the Revenue.

However, in regard to the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court – “(on page 286) 7 …….. Before the assessing officer, it was argued by the assesse(s) that it had invested the funds on short term basis as the funds were not required immediately for business purposes and consequently, such act of investment constituted a business activity by a prudent businessman; therefore, such interest income was liable to be taxed under section 28 and not under section 56 of the Act and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The argument was rejected by the assessing officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s). 19.2 From the above, it emerges that (a) that assessee (issue before the Supreme Court) had admitted before the AO that it had invested surplus funds, which were not immediately required for the purpose of its business, in short term deposits; (b) that the surplus funds arose out of the amount retained from marketing the agricultural produce of the members; (c) that assessee carried on two activities, namely, (i) acceptance of deposit and lending by way of deposits to the members; and (ii)marketing the agricultural produce; and (d) that the surplus had arisen emphatically from marketing of agricultural produces. 19.3 In the present case under consideration, the entire funds were utilized for the purposes of business and there were no surplus funds. 19.4 While comparing the state of affairs of the present assessee with that assessee (before the Supreme Court), the following clinching dissimilarities emerge, namely: (1) in the case of assessee, the entire funds were utilized for the purposes of business and that there were no surplus funds:- - in the case of Totgars, it had surplus funds, as admitted before the AO, out of retained amounts on marketing of agricultural produce of its members; (2) in the case of present assessee, it had not carry out any activity except in providing credit facilities to its members and that the funds were of operational funds. The only fund available with the assessee was deposits from its members and, thus, there was no surplus funds as such; - in the case of Totgars, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not spelt out anything with regard to operational funds; 19.5 Considering the above facts, we find that there is force in the argument of the assessee that the assessee not a co-operative bank, but its nature of business was coupled with banking with its members, as it accepts deposits from and lends the same to its members. To meet any eventuality, the assessee was required to maintain some liquid funds. That was why, it was submitted by the assessee that it had invested in short- term deposits. Furthermore, the assessee had maintained overdraft facility with Dena Bank and the balance as at 31.3.2009 was Rs.13,69,955/- [source : Balance Sheet of the assessee available on record]. 19.6 In overall consideration of all the aspects, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-op Sale Society Ltd (supra) cannot in any way come to the rescue of either the Ld. CIT (A) or the Revenue. In view of the above facts, we are of the firm view that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the sum of Rs.9,40,639/- was to be taxed u/s 56 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.”

5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co- ordinate Bench, we hereby hold that the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly granted by ld. CIT(A), however, he has wrongly held that the interest income is taxable u/s 56 of the Act so do not fall under the category of exempted income u/s 80P of the Act. The adverse portion of the view, which is against the assessee, of ld. CIT(A) is hereby reversed following the decision of the Tribunal cited supra, resultantly ground is allowed.

11. In the background of aforesaid discussion and decisions, we find that CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment order. The Appellant Cooperative society is entitled for deduction u/s 80P as claimed in the return.

12. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his paper book also supports his case to the proposition that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest earned on deposits with the nationalized banks and cooperative banks.

13. In view of the above decisions cited (supra), I hold that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest earned on fixed deposits with the nationalized banks and cooperative banks amounting to Rs.22,52,959/-. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

I have already decided the issue and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. Following similar reasonings, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest earned on fixed deposits with the nationalized banks and cooperative banks amounting to Rs.19,09,863/- is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th February, 2026.