DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. DAKSHINA KANNADA CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, KULASEKHARA

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by revenue is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 30.11.2023. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: On the relief given by CIT(A) to addition made u/s 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO:

1. Whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing 100% deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of IT Act, 1961 in respect of whole of its income by way of interest earned by it on the deposits or investments made by it during these years with a Cooperative Bank M/s. South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

2. Whether CIT(A) has erred in concluding that M/s. South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is not governed by RBI Banking Regulation Act even when Section 56 of RBI Banking Regulation Act is applicable to this bank. Total tax effect Rs.5,40,66,937/- Dakshina Kannada Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Mangaluru Page 2 of 4

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 16.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.26,30,41,470/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) was issued by the AO on 29.06.2021 to the assessee. Assessee had submitted its reply before the AO during the assessment proceedings. While concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the interest of Rs. 5,40,66,937/- received from South Canara Distt. Central Co- operative Bank u/s 80(2)(d) of the Act and also disallowed Rs. 50,000/- as deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act by passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.09.2022. Being aggrieved by the above action of AO, the assessee went in appeal against the impugned order before NFAC. NFAC deleted the addition made by the ld. AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against this revenue is in appeal before us by way of above grounds.

3. The main crux of the aforesaid grounds is with regard to the ground relating to deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which has been allowed by the NFAC. Against this revenue is in appeal before us. 3.1 The ld. D.R. argued that the assessee earned interest income from deposit with scheduled banks and co-operative banks. Facts regarding this ground are that the assessee earned interest income from deposits with Scheduled banks and Co-operative banks, which has been assessed as “income from other sources” and no deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act could be granted to the assessee. Now the contention of the revenue is that this income is not to be assessed as “business income” and deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be granted. Without prejudice to this, it was submitted that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act with regard to cost of funds incurred if the income is assessed as “income