Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order which allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,46,91,094/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this claim, but the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on previous tribunal decisions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80P for the assessee had been decided in favor of the assessee by a Co-ordinate Bench for a prior assessment year. Following that precedent, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that it is not a cooperative bank and therefore not eligible for the deduction as per sub-section (4) of Section 80P.
Sections Cited
80P, 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(i), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 23.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,46,91,094/- under section 80P of the Income tax Act, 1961to the assessee by J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. 2 ITA No. 4467/MUM/2023 holding that the assessee is a co holding that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co ty and not a co- operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative agricultural and rural deve agricultural and rural development bank and thus as per sub lopment bank and thus as per sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act? deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act? 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in assessment order passed u/s 143(3 assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of deduction short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of u/s 80P(2)(i) of the Act following u/s 80P(2)(i) of the Act following assessment orders in assessment orders in earlier assessment years including assessment year 2017 assessment years including assessment year 2017-18. However, the 18. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the sa Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance following the decision of the id disallowance following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shravati Pathina Shravati Pathina Niyamita vs ITO [2022] Niyamita vs ITO [2022] Taxmann.com 170(Bang-Trib) and Trib) and Kochi Bench of the ITAT in Ochanthuruth nch of the ITAT in Ochanthuruth Service Co Operative Bank Ltd Service Co Operative Bank Ltd [2023] 152 taxmann.com 437 (Cochin taxmann.com 437 (Cochin - Trib.). . Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as reproduced above.
At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Ac identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Ac been adjudicated by the Tribunal in for been adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3817/M/2023 for been adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3817/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 assessment year 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The relevant 18 in the case of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under :
“10. We note that the CIT(A) has allowed Assessee's claim for deduction of 10. We note that the CIT(A) has allowed Assessee's claim for deduction of 10. We note that the CIT(A) has allowed Assessee's claim for deduction of under Section 80P of the Act by placing reliance upon the judgment of the under Section 80P of the Act by placing reliance upon the judgment of the under Section 80P of the Act by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co Operative Bank Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co Operative Bank Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co Operative Bank (supra) and the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shravati (supra) and the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shravati (supra) and the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shravati Pathina Niyamita (supra). Further, the Pathina Niyamita (supra). Further, the factual finding returned by the factual finding returned by the CIT(A) to the effect that the Appellant does not hold a banking license CIT(A) to the effect that the Appellant does not hold a banking license CIT(A) to the effect that the Appellant does not hold a banking license
J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. 3 ITA No. 4467/MUM/2023 issued by Reserve Bank of India has not been controverted in the appellate issued by Reserve Bank of India has not been controverted in the appellate issued by Reserve Bank of India has not been controverted in the appellate proceedings before us. proceedings before us. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is, passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is, passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. therefore, dismissed.”
We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of the assessee by the Co the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) of the Tribunal (supra) ,therefore, respectfully following the same, w espectfully following the same, we do not find any e do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, the sole sole ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nced in the open Court on 08/05 /05/2024.