INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2020-21 cuke Income Tax Officer, Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahkari Vs. Ward 2(2), Kota Shiksha Samiti Limited, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAH 2943 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. & Sh. Sorabh Harsh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 20/08/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These two appeals are filed by the revenue and are arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 01/09/2023 [here in after ‘NFAC’) ] for assessment years 2017-18 & 2020-21 which in turn arise from the order dated 26.12.2019 & 20.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by AO.

2 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited 2. Revenue has challenged the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d)

to the by the ld. CIT(A) in both the assessment year. As the issue involved

in these appeals are identical on facts and are common on ground for the

dispute, except the difference in figure disputed in each year. Both these

appeal were heard together with the consent of the parties and are

disposed off by this consolidated order.

submitted as the issue in both the appeals are common on facts and in law

the matter in ITA No. 645/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for

discussions and disposal of these cases. The ld. AR did not raise any

specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the

purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 645/JP/2023 is

taken as a lead case.

that the revenue has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 645/JP/2023 on the

following grounds;

“(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in terms of disallowing the Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, 1961 on the Interest Income deposits/investments in a Co-operative Bank.

3 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the leanred CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in ignoring the finding of the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court vide order dated 21/09/2016 in assessee’s own case related to A.y 2007- 08, involving the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which was rightly pointed by the AO while making the assessment?

Vide letter dated 09.05.2024 revenue preferred to revise the ground and

instead of two grounds they raised a revised one single ground which reads

as under ;

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in terms of disallowing the Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, 1961 on the Interest Income earned by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,45,12,666/- from its deposits / investments in a Co-operative bank?

assessee is a co-operative Society registered with the “Registrar of

Cooperative Societies for Rajasthan” having its primary object to carry on

the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed

the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 25.10.2017 declaring Nil total

income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT. Act 1961 on 22.02.2019

by the CPC at returned income.

5.1 The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. A notice

u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to assessee under digital signature on

4 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited 11.08.2018, which was transmitted/served upon the assessee by electronic

mail to the e-mail address designated by him as per return of income filed.

Subsequent thereto, notices were issued to assessee thereby requesting to

file the required details / documents. The assessee submitted upto the

mentioned date in above notice and served upon the assessee by e-

mail/speed post. In response to the notice issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of

the Act, the assessee / authorized representative of the assessee furnished

the requisite details to the assessing officer.

5.2 The society as its educational activity runs a B.Ed. College affiliated

with the Kota University, Kota. In respect of the said activity, separate set of

books are maintained. Such books of accounts are duly supported by

supporting record and stand audited. Copy of Income and expenditure

account and balance sheet stands submitted on the assessment record.

The co-operative society is engaged in providing credit facilities to its

members. It has received deposits from its members and has given loans &

advances to the members as per their requirement and the amount

remaining surplus is deposited with co-operative banks. During assessment

proceedings ld. AO noted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.

1,45,12,670/- under section 80P of the Act. The assessing officer is in the

opinion that society was not eligible to claim deduction under section 80P

5 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited on the income from other sources, which was earned in the form of interest

from FDRs and deposits in Banks other than co-operative societies.

Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee that “As per

provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) cooperative societies are eligible to claim

deduction for carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facility

to its members. Further it is provided that deduction will be available for the

whole of the amount of profit and gains of business attributable to anyone

or more such activities. It is observed that the assessee society has earned

interest income from banks and other institutions which is not covered

under the provision of section 80P of the act and liable for taxation under

section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, following the rule of principle

of natural justice the assessee given an opportunity to show cause as to

why the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee should not

made.

5.3 The assessee filed a detailed reply in relation to the allowability of

deduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act. The ld. AO considered the reply of

the assessee but not found convincing and noted as under :

“5.1 The provisions of section 80P(4) shall not apply in relation to any co- operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-

6 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited operative agricultural and rural development bank and co- operative bank" and "primary agricultural credit society" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949). Further it is also seen that Co- operative banks, in which assessee Society has invested its funds are not claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act. In the light of provisions of section 80P and above facts of the case, I am in the view that assessee Society is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80P on the quantum of income which is not covered under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” The ld. AR further requested that the interest income of Rs. 6,88,98,489/- is

eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and given the

written submission to justify the claim. The ld. AO noted that the interest

which the assessee has earned are received from the banks and thus he

hold a view that the assessee has received the interest from the bank and

not from the co-operatitve society therefore, he denied the claim of the

assessee for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act for an amount of Rs.

1,45,12,666/-.

was filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the addition so made by

the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the arguments of the assessee

and has directed to delete disallowance of deduction claimed by the

assessee for an amount of Rs. 1,45,12,666/-. The relevant finding of the ld.

CIT(A) on the issue is reiterated here in below:

"4.2 Decision: I have gone through and duly considered the submission made by the appellant, AO’s observation in the assessment order u/s 143(3) and other

7 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited facts of the case available on the record. The appellant has furnished many irrelevant submissions which are not applicable to the present assessment order.

4.2.1 The prime contention of the appellant in these grounds of appeal is denial of deduction u/s 80P by not considering the income earned by way of investment made in various institutions/societies by the appellant society and consequent determination of Rs. 1,45,12,670/- as the taxable income of the society.

4.2.2 Appellant society is registered as a credit cooperative society registered with the Registrar of Co-operative societies for Rajasthan. The primary object of the appellant society is to carry on the business of providing credit facilities to its members and to run educational institutions. In the assessment order, assessing officer initially held that the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, society has received deposits from its members and has given loan and advances to the members as per their requirement and the remaining surplus is deposited with co-operative banks. The Assessing officer came to conclusion that appellant society was not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P on the "income from other sources which was earned in the form of interest from FDRs and deposits in Bank other than co-operative societies and has issued the show cause notice. After the receipt of reply from appellant, he has invoked provisions of Section 80P(4) to deny the deduction available u/s 80P Provisions of section 80P(4) is applicable to the co-operative bank. In this case, the appellant is not a co-operative bank as per the banking regulation act and does not have necessary license. The AO has also not mentioned any evidence or argument holding the appellant to be a co-operative bank. Therefore, AO was wrong in invoking section 80P(4) in denying the deduction u/s 80P.

4.2.3 The AO has held that the appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for the interest receipts of Rs 6,88,98,489. Details of such interest receipts were seen in the assessment order and the written submission. It is seen that the appellant has earned total interest of Rs. 6,87,59,794/- from Kota Central Co-op Bank (KCCB) and Kota Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited, Kota (KNSB) and amount of Rs. 1,38,695/- from other banks. The deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is given for income by way of interest or dividend derived by the cooperative society from its investment with any other cooperative society. During the appeal proceedings for AY 2018-19, the appellant had furnished the details in the form of certificate of registration of KNSB and KCCB that these are cooperative societies registered under Rajasthan co-operative societies act, IV of 1953. The appellant has also cited various decisions that have distinguished the Honourable Karnataka High

8 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited Court decision in the case of Tatagars Co-operative sales society. Reliance is also made on the honourable ITAT Jaipur decision in the case of

Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) extracted above. Therefore, I agree with the appellant's submission that this interest is received from other cooperative societies to the tune of Rs, 6,87,59,794/- and is thus eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 21/09/2016 in the appellant's own case decided that interest income earned from nationalized bank (banks other than co-operative banks) should be taxed under the head "income from other sources" In respect of the amount of Rs. 1,38,695/-, this income has been received from banks other than the co-operative societies, therefore, is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Therefore, appeal is partly allowed on these grounds.”

revenue on the grounds as stated herein above mainly disputing the

deletion of disallowance made by the assessing officer considering the

interest received from the bank and not from the co-operative society.

Apropos to the grounds so raised the ld. DR filed the following written

submissions on 29.05.2024:

9 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited RRB shall be deemed to be cooperative society for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in order to make such banks eligible for deduction under section 80P, CBDT issued a beneficial Circular No. 319 dated 11- 1-1982, which stated that for the purpose of section 80P, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society. 3. Section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 1-4-2007 introducing sub-section (4), which laid down specifically that the provisions of section 80P will not apply to any cooperative bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Accordingly, deduction under section 80P was no more available to any Regional Rural Bank from assessment year 2007-08 onwards. An OM dated 25-8-2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the Board clarifying that Regional Rural Banks would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. 4. It has been bought to the notice of the Board that despite the amended provisions, some Regional Rural Banks continue to claim deduction under section 80P on the ground that they are cooperative societies covered by section 80P(1) read with Boards Circular No. 319 dated 11-1-1982. 5. It is, therefore, reiterated that Regional Rural Banks are not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. Further more, the Circular No. 319 dated 11-1-1982 deeming any Regional Rural Bank to be cooperative society stands withdrawn for application with effect from assessment year 2007-08. The field officers may take note of this position and take remedial action, if required.”

2.1 It is very much evident from the aforesaid Circular that as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Regional Rural Banks were considered to be not eligible for deduction u/s 80P when the section was originally introduced. Later on, few RRBs started to claim deduction u/s 80P as per section 22 of the RRB Act, 1976. At that time, the claim of deduction by the RRBs was not as per law as the I T Act, 1961 did not provide for such deduction. In order to give special status to the RRBs, a new CBDT circular no. 310 dated 11.01.1982 was issued in which the RRBs were allowed deduction u/s 80P.

2.2 Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance decided to withdraw the special status given to the RRBs vide CBDT circular dated 11.01.1982 and section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006 introducing sub-section 4 to section 80P of the Act which laid down specifically that the provisions of section 80P will not apply to any cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural society or a primary cooperative agricultural and Rural Development Bank.

10 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

2.3 Furthermore, an OM dated 25.08.2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the CBDT clarifying that the RRBs would not be eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act from the A.Y. 2007-08 onwards. So, the condition prior to CBDT circular dated 11.01.1982 was restored.

“11. The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011- 2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. The reason is that now the investments and deposits after the Supreme Court's decision against the assessee Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), the assessee has shifted the deposits and investments from Schedule Banks to Co-operative Bank and such Co-operative Bank is essentially a Co-operative Society also and Clause (d) allows deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived by the assessee Co-operative Society from its investments with any other Co-operative Society. 12. The sheet anchor of the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee misses two essential points required for claiming the exemption or 100% deduction from gross total income for a co-operative society: (i) that the character or nature of income, namely interest on investments or deposits, does not change irrespective of the fact whether it is earned or received from a Schedule Bank or Co-operative Bank. (ii) that What the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of the respondent assessee itself, against the assessee, was that such interest income on its surplus and idle funds not immediately required for its business, is not income from business taxable under Section 28 of the Act, but was taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act, whereas for availing the exemption or 100% deduction under Section 80P of the Act the income is specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 80P of the Act should be its business or operational income. 13. What Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which was though not specifically argued and canvassed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, envisages is that such interest or dividend earned by an assessee co-operative society should be out of the investments with any other co-operative society. The words 'Co-operative Banks' are missing in clause (d) of subsection (2) of Section 80P of the Act. Even though a co- operative bank may have the corporate body or skeleton of a co-operative society but its business is

11 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited entirely different and that is the banking business, which is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Only the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies with their limited work of providing credit facility to its members continued to be governed by the ambit and scope of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 14. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business income from such exemption/deduction category. The words used in Section 80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society …..". The words "in relation to" can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a co- operative Society from a Co-operative Bank. This exclusion by Section 80P(4) of the Act even though without any amendment in Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The only exception is that of a primary agricultural credit society. The depository Kanara District Central Bank Limited in the present case is admittedly not such a primary agricultural credit society. 15. The amendment of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co- operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act.”

The Hon’ble High Court has clearly stated that the provisions of the section 80P shall not apply in relation to cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural society or a primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank.

12 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

4.1 The Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the issue in totality. It is very much evident that deduction u/s 80 P of the Act was not available to the Cooperative Banks. Later on, few RRBs started to claim deduction u/s 80P as per section 22 of the RRB Act, 1976. At that time, the claim of deduction by the RRBs was not as per law as the I T Act, 1961 did not provide for such deduction. In order to give special status to the RRBs, a new CBDT circular no. 310 dated 11.01.1982 was issued in which the RRBs were allowed deduction u/s 80P.

4.2 In 2006, the Finance Ministry took a conscious decision and decided to bring an end to the special status provided to the co-operative banks (through circular no. 310 dated 11.01.1982) by bringing a change in the statue of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Section 80P(4) was introduced in the I.T. Act 1961 categorically mentioning that the provision u/s 80P of the Act shall not apply in relation to any co-operative banks. The statute clearly mentioned the exceptions which are eligible for deduction u/s 80P. It is settled principle of law that the provisions relating to income tax will be governed by the I.T. Act, 1961 and will have an over-riding effect on other statute affected by those provisions such as RRBs Act 1976. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle of law in its order.The Hon’ble ITAT Bench Jaipur has adjudicated this issue earlier placing reliance on aforesaid Rajasthan High Court order.

7.1 In support of the contention so raised the ld. DR relied upon the

following evidence / decisions;

S.No: PARTICULARS Page No. 1 CIRCULAR NO. 6/2010 [F.NO. 173(3)/44/2009-IT (A-I)], DATED 20-9-2010 1 2 CIRCULAR NO. 14/2006, DATED 28-12-2006 2-27 3 28-60 BILL FINANCE BILL, 2006 MEMORANDUM REGARDING DELEGATED LEGISLATION 4 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 140 (Karnataka) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 61-77 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubballi v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 5 78-97 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 64 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT State Bank of India (SBI) v. Commissioner of Income-tax

13 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited 6 98-112 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 307 (Punjab & Haryana) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Chandigarh v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd 7 113-122 [2009] 176 Taxman 404 (Rajasthan) HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN Commissioner of Income-tax* v. Sirohi S.B.V. Bank Ltd. 8 123-130 HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN DB ITA No 636/2008 The CIT, Kota V. M/s Shri Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahakari Shiksha Samiti Ltd. 9 [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Totgars, Co- 131-137 operative Sale Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka

7.2 The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the interest income which the

assessee society has earned is derived from the co-operative bank and not

from the co-operative society and considering the amendment made in

section 80P(4) of the Act it is incorrect to appreciate that the co-operative

bank is co-operative society for allowing the benefit to the assessee when

there is not dispute that the interest income received by the assessee is

from the co-operative bank may be running as co-operative bank or nagrick

bank. In support of the contention the ld. DR heavily relied upon the CBDT

circular no. 06/2010 dated 20.09.2010 wherein the board has clarified that

the Regional Rural Banks(RRBs) are basically corporate entities and earlier

the board has clarified that for the purpose of the section 80P they were

treated as co-operative society and upon the amendment made in section

80P(4) of the Act they are considered as corporate entities and similar

14 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited treatment be given to the assessee. The ld. DR also relied upon the

following written submission on these aspect as argued:

“2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR pleaded that the assessee "Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited" has made investment in co- operative banks and not in the RRBs and the income thereupon is therefore exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the CBDT circular no. 06/2010 dated 20.09.2010 is not applicable in the instant case.

3.1 The judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT Ajmer V/s M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. D.B. ITA no. 2/2019 dated 13.08.2019 is therefore not applicable in the case of the assessee as the same is with regard to RRBs and the assessee's investment are with the co-operative banks. Therefore there is no judgment of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue in favour of the assessee. Further, the adjudications of the Hon'ble Tribunals based on the above case law on this issue are therefore not applicable.

3.2 The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT Hubbaali V/s Totagars Co-operative Sales Society [2017] 83 taxmann.com 140 (Karnataka) dated June 16. 2017 is squarely applicable in the instant case and the issue in contention has been specifically dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (emphasis supplied upon para 14 of the aforesaid order). The phrase "in relation to" appearing in section 80P(4) of the Act and its connotations has been discussed in said order. 3.3 The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) dated FEBRUARY 8.2010 strengthens the case of the revenue as has been mentioned in para 11 to 13 of the order of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT Hubbaali V/s Totagars Co-operative Sales Society [2017] 83 taxmann.com 140 (Karnataka) dated June 16, 2017. In this way the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court support the stand of the revenue on this issue.

3.4 Section 80P (4) of the Act specifically mentions the cooperative bank (other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank) in relation to which the provision of 80P (2)(d) of

15 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited the Act are applicable. If certain co-operative banks are not eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80P, then it is incorrect to interpret that income arising out of investment in these co-operative banks will be eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act.

3.5 Though the headnote of the CBDT circular no. 06/2010 dated 20.09.2010 talks about RRBs but section 80P (4) of the Act has been discussed in the said circular and hence is applicable for co-operative banks (issue in hand). Respectfully submitted for your kind consideration.”

order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted the written submission to counter the

ground raised by the revenue. The written submission reads as under:

“The Assessee Respondent – Society is a Co-operative Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 1. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 26.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-2018 assessed the Total Income of the assessee at Rs. 1,45,12,666/-. He has disallowed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest earned by the assessee applicant from Cooperative Banks, i.e., A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Kota Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and also from scheduled commercial banks. 1.1. The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 01.09.2023 for A.Y. 2017-2018 has (i) allowed relief to the assessee towards interest earned by the assessee applicant from Cooperative Banks and has (ii) allowed the benefit of claim of proportionate expenses on interest income earned from scheduled commercial banks. 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 20.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-2021 assessed the Total Income of the assessee at Rs. 7,94,24,130/-. He has disallowed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest earned by the assessee applicant from Cooperative Banks, i.e., A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Kota Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and also from scheduled commercial banks. 2.1. The CIT(A) vide its order dated 01.09.2023 has (i) allowed relief to the assessee towards interest earned by the assessee applicant from Cooperative Banks and has (ii) allowed the benefit of claim of proportionate expenses on interest income earned from scheduled commercial banks.

16 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

17 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

Income Tax Act. However, I propose to exclude all other cooperative banks from the scope of that section.”

SNo. High Court / Particulars PB Tribunal 1. Rajasthan High PCIT v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak 01-02 Court Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2019) 8 TMI 1131 dated 13.08.2019 2 Madras High Court Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. v. 14-16 ITO (2023) 11 TMI 779 dated 10.10.2023 3 Gujarat High Court The Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. 17-23 PCIT (2016) 7 TMI 1217 dated 12.07.2016 4 Gujarat High Court State Bank of India v. CIT (2016) 7 TMI 516 24-41 dated 25.04.2016 5 Jodhpur Bench ACIT v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak 03-13 Sahakari Sangh Ltd. in ITA 163/Jodh/2019 dated 11.09.2023 6 Jaipur Bench Royal Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. AO, 42-63 NFAC (2023) 6 TMI 1026 dated 20.06.2023

18 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

7 Jaipur Bench Jhunjhunu Kraya Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 64-82 v. PCIT (2022) 12 TMI 1117 dated 15.12.2022 8 Jaipur Bench Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh 83-88 Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 11 TMI 813 dated 09.11.2022 9 Jaipur Bench Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. 262-274 v. PCIT {ITA: 23/JP/2021 dated 09.11.2021) 10 Jaipur Bench Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. 275-303 PCIT {2021 (12) TMI 635 dated 02.11.2021} 11 Jaipur Bench Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 304-319 v. PCIT {2021 (3) TMI 256 dated 01.03.2021} 12 Jaipur Bench Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 320-330 v. PCIT {2019 (11) TMI 690 dated 28.08.2019} 13 Jaipur Bench Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 331-349 v. DCIT {2020 (3) TMI 631 dated 04.03.2020} 14 Jaipur Bench Shahpura Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. 350-356 ITO {2020 (10) TMI 715 dated 15.10.2020} 15 Jaipur Bench Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 357-366 v. ACIT {2019 (9) TMI 1338 dated 30.09.2019} 16 Ahmedabad Laxmi Bachat Sharafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. 367-380 Bench ITO {2022 (9) TMI 153 dated 31.08.2022} 17 Rajkot Bench Galaxy Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. 381-384 PCIT {2022 (7) TMI 494 dated 08.07.2022} 18 Pune Bench Dr. Jagadale Mama Hospital Employees Coop 385-390 Credit Society Ltd. v. PCIT {2022 (9) TMI 30 dated 29.08.2022} 19 Surat Bench ACIT v. Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahkari Mandli 391-393 Ltd. {2022 (10) TMI 257 dated 06.10.2022} 20 Vishakhapatnam Krishna District Milk Producer Mutually Aided 394-405 Bench Co-operative Union Limited v. ACIT {2021 (3) TMI 1108 dated 24.03.2021} 21 Madras Bench NLC Indcoserve v. ITO {2022 (6) TMI 936 406-415 dated 08.06.2022} 22 Raipur Bench Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. ITO 416-429 {2022 (8) TMI 597 dated 04.08.2022} 23 Bangalore Bench Kanakshree House Building Co-operative 430-440 Society {2022 (1) TMI 1187 dated 17.11.2021} 24 Delhi Bench ITO v. The Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift and 441-443 Credit Society Ltd. {2022 (6) TMI 74 dated 31.05.2022} 25 Mumbai Bench Avanti Niketan Cooperative Housing Society 444-449 Ltd. v. CIT(A) {2022 (10) TMI 401 dated 06.10.2022}

19 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

26 Panaji Bench Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Cooperative 450-456 Association Ltd. v. ITO {2022 (4) TMI 395 dated 06.04.2022} 27 Kolkata Bench Bhairabnala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti 457-461 Ltd. v. ITO {2022 (12) TMI 755 dated 15.12.2022}

was also placed on the following further decisions:

Sno. Particulars Page

1 01-02 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of PCIT v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2019) 8 TMI 1131 dated 13.08.2019

1.1 03-13 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in case of ACIT v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. in ITA 163/Jodh/2019 dated 11.09.2023

2 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Thorapadi 14-16 Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 11 TMI 779 dated 10.10.2023

3 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of The Surat 17-23 Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 7 TMI 1217 dated 12.07.2016

4 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of 24-41 India v. CIT (2016) 7 TMI 516 dated 25.04.2016

20 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited 5 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Royal Credit 42-63 Cooperative Society Ltd. v. AO, NFAC (2023) 6 TMI 1026 dated 20.06.2023

6 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Jhunjhunu 64-82 Kraya Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 12 TMI 1117 dated 15.12.2022

7 Copy of order passed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Jaipur Zila 83-88 Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 11 TMI 813 dated 09.11.2022

8 Copies of Certificates issued by concerned authorities for:

89-89 • A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. 90-90 • Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. • Kota Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. 91-91 9 • Copy of order dated 10.12.2010 pas ed by Hon'ble ITAT for A.Y. 92-110 2007-2008 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 22.03.2013 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2007- 111-125 2008 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 09.04.2018 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011- 126-143 2012 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 08.02.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013- 144-166 2014 in assessee's own case 147-190 • Copy of order dated 09.02.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2014- 2015 in assessee's own case 191-213 • Copy of order dated 08.02.2019 passed by Id. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015- 2016 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 1998- 214-221 1999 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 1999- 222-229 2000 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2000- 230-237 2001 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2001- 238-245 2002 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2003- 246-253 2004 in assessee's own case • Copy of order dated 01.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2004- 254-261 2005 in assessee's own case

21 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

Page S.no. Court Particulars no. 1. Jaipur Bench Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy 262-274 Federation Ltd. v. PCIT {ITA: 23/JP/2021 dated 09.11.2021) 2. Jaipur Bench Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti 275-303 Ltd. v. PCIT {2021 (12) TMI 635 dated 02.11.2021} 3. Jaipur Bench Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. PCIT 304-319 {2021 (3) TMI 256 dated 01.03.2021} 4. Jaipur Bench Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. PCIT 320-330 {2019 (11) TMI 690 dated 28.08.2019} 5. Jaipur Bench Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. DCIT 331-349 {2020 (3) TMI 631 dated 04.03.2020} 6. Jaipur Bench Shahpura Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. ITO {2020 (10) 350-356 TMI 715 dated 15.10.2020} 7. Jaipur Bench Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. ACIT 357-366 {2019 (9) TMI 1338 dated 30.09.2019} 8. Ahmedabad Laxmi Bachat Sharafi Sahkari 367-380 Bench Mandali Ltd. v. ITO {2022 (9) TMI 153 dated 31.08.2022}

22 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

that the ld. CIT(A) has given the categorical finding that the assessee is not

a co-operative bank as per the banking regulation of the Act and does not

23 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited have necessary license of banking company. The ld. AO nowhere held that

the assessee is not credit cooperative society and co-operative bank. That

finding of the ld. CIT(A) being factual in nature and the revenue has not

challenged that finding the ground for disallowance of deduction has not

force and is required to be dismissed even on that ground. He further,

submitted that the circular referred by the ld. DR is for considering the

RRBs as corporate entity of the amendment of section 80(P)(4) and board

does not referred the co-operative society running a co-operative society

and the assessee is not doing banking activities as permitted by the RBI.

Merely it earned interest on investing its funds it cannot be considered as

co-operative bank. So the arguments of the ld. DR to consider the assessee

being co-operative society to be considered as corporate entity is

misconceived. The RRBs were registered as company and was considered

for limited purpose of extending the benefit of section 80P were considered

as co-operative society and that aspect was clarified in the board circular

without specifying the co-operative society. Even the investment made by

the assessee is not in the RRBs and therefore, the arguments advanced

have no force. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Department

has preferred an appeal against the order in ITA No. 437/Jodh/2017 dated

31.10.2018 wherein the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court, Jodhpur Bench has

24 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited considered the circular as referred by the revenue and the appeal of the

revenue was dismissed vide order in appeal no. No. 2/2019. Thus, the

issue is correctly decided by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee.

on records by both the parties. Before us both the parties supported the

orders of the lower authorities as favorable to them. In this appeal the

solitary ground raised by the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) is justified in

directing the ld. AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,12,666/- made by

the ld. AO considering the provision of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The

brief facts being not disputed by both the parties the same are not repeated

and we directly deal with the allowability of deduction claimed by the

assessee for an amount of Rs. 1,45,12,666/- as per provision of section

80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee in the assessment proceeding

contended that they have received a sum of Rs. 6,68,98,489/-. Most of the

amount so received is sourced from the co-operative society though the

same are also running as co-operative bank. The ld. AO did not consider

the interest income stating that though assessee claimed to have received

the interest from the entity registered under Co-operative Societies Act but

it also granted license to carry on banking business u/s. 22(1) read with

25 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited section 56(o) of the Reserve Bank of India and thus considering the

amendment made in section 80P(4) he did not considered these interest

income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, the limited

issue before us is that whether the assessee being co-operative society be

denied benefit of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest received from

another cooperative Societies [ Running as co-operative bank as per

banking regulations ]. The similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble

Rajasthan High court, Jodhpur while dealing with the Revenue’s appeal

filed for the assessment year 2014-15 in the case of PCIT, Ajmer vs M/s

Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. in BD Income Tax

Appeal No. 2/2019. The relevant observation made in the order by the

Jurisdictional High Court has been reproduced as under:

“The revenue cites a CBDT Circular (No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010) and contends that the Board categorically stated that interest income derived from deposits, made with non- cooperative institutions and more specifically Regional Rural Banks do not qualify for the benefit under Section 80P(2) of the Act of 1961. Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 states as follows” “22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a co- operative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to any tax on income, profits, or gains, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society." The CBDT reasoning appears to be that Section 80P was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2007 introducing specifically that the benefit of exemption would not apply to any cooperative bank other than Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The circular then stated that in the light of this inclusion - to Section 80P by way of introduction of Section 80P(4), the exemption could not be availed of by the banks invested in Regional Rural Banks. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's contention is unsustainable. Section 22 in uncertain terms categorically deems Regional Rural Banks (of which description Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Banks answer to) as Cooperative

26 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited Societies for the purposes of Income Tax Act. In the absence of non-obstante clause, the mere fact that a restrictive condition was imposed in relation to a Cooperative Bank for regulating the benefit of Section 80P, does not in any manner, alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed Cooperative Societies and all the contingent consequences that flow from it. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”

the bench has dealt with that issue in detailed and the finding of the bench

in that case being in detailed is reproduced herein below:

“7. We have heard the both parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench observed that the said appeal was filed on the basis of that addition of Rs. 2,23,46,187/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We note that the department has preferred an appeal against the order of Id. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17 wherein the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act amount to Rs. 2,23,46,187/- was deleted. The issue before us is that whether the assessee being co-operative society be denied benefit of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest received from another co- operative society engaged in banking activities. The similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court, Jodhpur has decided in Revenue's appeal filed for the assessment year 2014-15 in the case of PCIT. Ajmer vs M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. in BD Income Tax Appeal No. 2/2019 vide its order dated 13.08.2019. The relevant observation made in the order by the Jurisdictional High Court has been reproduced as under:-

"The revenue cites a CBDT Circular (No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010) and contends that the Board categorically stated that interest income derived from deposits, made with non- cooperative institutions and more specifically Regional Rural Banks do not qualify for the benefit under Section 80P(2) of the Act of 1961. Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 states as follows"

"22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a co- operative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to any tax on income, profits, or gains, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society.

27 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

The CBDT reasoning appears to be that Section 80P was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2007 introducing specifically that the benefit of exemption would not apply to any cooperative bank other than Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The circular then stated that in the light of this inclusion to Section 80P by way of introduction of Section 80P(4), the exemption could not be availed of by the banks invested in Regional Rural Banks.

This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's contention is unsustainable. Section 22 in uncertain terms categorically deems Regional Rural Banks (of which description Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Banks answer to) as Cooperative Societies for the purposes of Income Tax Act,

In the absence of non-obstante clause, the mere fact that a restrictive condition was imposed in relation to a Cooperative Bank for regulating the benefit of Section 80P, does not in any manner, alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed Cooperative

Societies and all the contingent consequences that flow from it. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed."

Taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances of the case, we observed that the Ild. CIT(A) has rightly passed the order as the similar written submission filed by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and the identical issue which is in favour of the assessee's own case of the Coordinate Bench in case by the ITAT, Jodhpur's order dated 31.10.2018 in ITA No. 437/Jodh/2017, A.Y 2014-15) which have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Court. The relevant observations of ITAT is as under:-

"5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the assessment proceedings the AO noted that assessee has claimed exemption of interest income on FDR with Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., for Rs.76,43.562/- and interest on FDR with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank of Rs.2,09,91,701 The AO allowed the exemption on interest received from Central Co-operative Bank However, the AO disallowed the exemption on account of interest earned from Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank on his observation that Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank is not a Co-operative Society. The 40 also took the view that Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank is neither registered under Co-operative Society Act or under, other law for the time enforce any such state for registration of Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the interest of Rx 2,09,91,701/- received on FDR was not held eligible for deduction w/s 80P(2)(d). The Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO holding that Baroda Rajasthan (supra) is not a

28 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited

Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Society Act or under any law for the time enforce in any state for the registration of Co-operative Society, therefore, the interest received by assessee on FDR made with Baroda Rajasthan (supra) is not eligible for deduction w/s 80P(2)(d). 6. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Presidency Co-operative Society (supra) and in Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill. In our considered view the facts narrative is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In both the cases the assessee, (in those cases were held entitled for exemption of interest received on deposit with Co-operative Bank which were held as Co-operative Society. However, in the present case, the assessee has claimed that Rural Bank are also Co-operative We have examined the CBDT circular No. 6/2010 dated 16.09.2010, for appreciation of the contents the circular it is extracted below; CIRCULAR NO. 6/2010 IF NO. 173(3)/44/2009-IT (A-1)] DATED 20-9-2010. 1. Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for a deduction from the income of cooperative societies referred to in that section. 2. As Regional Rural Banks (RRB) are basically corporate entities (and not cooperative societies), they were considered to be not eligible for deduction under section 80P when the section was originally introduced However, as section 22 of the Regional Rural Bank Act provides that a RRB shall be deemed to be cooperative society for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in order to make such banks eligible for deduction under section 80P. CBDT issued a beneficial Circular No. 319 dated 11-1-1982, which stated that for the purpose of section 80P, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society. 3. Section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 1-4-2007 introducing sub-section (4), which laid down specifically that the provisions of section 80P will not apply to any cooperative bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Accordingly, deduction under section 80P was no more available to any Regional Rural Bank from assessment year 2007-08 onwards. An OM dated 25-8-2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the Board clarifying that Regional Rural Banks would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. 4. It has been bought to the notice of the Board that despite the amended provisions, some Regional Rural Banks continue to claim deduction under section 80P on the ground that they are cooperative societies covered by section 80P(1) read with Boards Circular No. 319 dated 11-1-1982. 5. It is, therefore, reiterated that Regional Rural Banks are not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. Furthermore, the Circular No. 319 dated 11-1-1982 deeming any Regional Rural Bank to be cooperative society stands withdrawn for application with effect from assessment year 2007-08. The field officers may take note of this position and take remedial action, if required. 7. We have also perused the various provisions of Regiona Rural Bank Act 1976. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramina Bank was set up under the provisions of under the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act. Section 22 of the Regional Rural Bank Act provides that Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a co-operative society for purpose of the

29 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited Income-tax Act, 1961. In our considered view the the Circular of CBDT cannot override the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Even the careful reading of the Circular No. 6 of CBDT make it clear that exemption is withdrawn with respect to Regional Rural Banks are not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards, and not the co-operative societies. The assessee before us is the cooperative society and not the Regional Rural Bank. Therefore, considering the provisions of section 22 of Regional Rural Bank Act, wherein the status of the banks established are of the co-operative societ the assessee is entitled for the exemption on the interest earned on the deposits. In the result the ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed." As the facts of the A.Y. 2014-15 are similar to the facts of the assessment year under appeal (2016-17), therefore, following the decision of ITAT, Jodhpur referred above, the AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs. 2,23,46,187/- u/s 80P(2)(d). In the result, the appeal is allowed.”

On being consistent to the finding so recorded herein above and the same

is also confirmed by our High Court wherein the our High Court has dealt

with the contention of the revenue relying the circular no. 06/2010 dated

20.09.2010. Thus, considering the above discussion and the detailed

finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the order

of the ld. CIT(A).

In terms of these observations, appeal of the revenue stands

dismissed.

ITA No. 645/JP/2023 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded

the materials available on record. The bench noticed that the issues raised

by the assessee in this appeal No. 646/JP/2023 is equally similar on set of

30 ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023 ITO vs. Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limited facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and

ground raised by the revenue. Hence, bench feels that the decision taken

by us in ITA No. 645/JP/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 shall apply

mutatis mutandis in the case of Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti

Limited in ITA No. 646/JP/2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

In terms of these observations, both appeals of the revenue are

stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/08/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20/08/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Hitkari Vidyalaya Shakari Shiksha Samiti Limted, Kota 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 645 & 646/JP/2023)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत