Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under section 80P for Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO denied the deduction, determining the total income at Rs. 81,61,689/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify credit facilities to non-members and deny deduction to that extent, while confirming the AO's view on other claims.
Held
The Tribunal held that interest/dividend income earned from investments in co-operative banks/scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). The matter concerning deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) related to investments made in compliance with Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules was restored to the AO for examination. The issue concerning commission income from MASS Ltd. was also restored to the AO for fresh examination. The issue concerning income from storing pledged agricultural produce was restored to the AO.
Key Issues
Dispute regarding the allowability of deduction under section 80P for various income sources, including interest from investments, commission, and income from storage facilities.
Sections Cited
80P, 143(2), 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 250, 56, 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(a)(iii), 80P(2)(d), 80P(2)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka State Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, the return of income was filed on 14.10.2018 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.81,61,682/- under section 80P of the Act. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2019. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated 25.02.2018. In the said Assessment Order, claim of deduction under section 80P was denied and the total income was determined at Rs.81,61,689/- as against the Nil income declared by the assessee society.
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the extent of credit facilities provided to non-members and deny the deduction under section 80P of the Act to that extent. As regards claim of deduction under sections 80P(2)(a)(iii) and 80P(2)(d) / 80P(2)(e) of the Act, the CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) held that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) or under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act w.r.t. interest / dividend received on investments with co-operative banks. However, the CIT(A) allowed the alternative claim of the assessee and directed the AO to allow cost of funds for earning the interest income which is to be assessed under the head “Income from Other Sources” under section 56 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books enclosing therein case laws relied on, calculation of cost of funds, bye-laws of the assessee society, submissions made before the CIT(A), etc. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and the CIT(A).
Learned DR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act are detailed below:
Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) Banking/Credit 8,01,565 Facilities to its members 2. Sec.80P(2)(a)(iii) Marketing of 1,71,558 Agricultural produce grown by its members 3. Sec.80P(2)(d) Interest/Dividend from 70,49,366 Investment in other co-operative society 4. Sec.80P(2)(e) Income from Letting of 1,39,200 godowns / warehouses for storage, processing / facilitating the marketing of commodities
Total deduction claimed u/s 80P 81,61,689
Before the Tribunal, assessee has raised 10 grounds. All the grounds relate to the following issues:
i. Issue No.1 : Deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest / dividend income earned from co-operative bank (Grounds 5, 7 and 8) ii. Issue No.2 : Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest / dividend earned from co-operative bank (Ground 6) iii. Deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act in respect of commission earned from Mangalore Agriculturists Souhardha Sahakari Ltd., (MASS Ltd.,) (ground 3) iv. Deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act on the income earned from storing the pledged agricultural produce against loans given (Ground 9)
We shall adjudicate the above issues as under:
Issue Nos.1 and 2: Deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P2)(d) of the Act (Grounds 5 to 8)
9.1.1 As regards the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., & Ors. Vs. CIT, reported in 431 ITR 1 (SC). The CIT(A) directed the AO to examine whether assessee is extending / providing credit facilities to non-members and income earned out of such activity cannot be granted deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The above direction of the learned CIT(A) is in conformity with the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., & Ors. (supra). Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect of the issue and we confirm the same.
9.1.2 As regards the interest income earned with investments in co-operative banks, the CIT(A) followed the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka) which was followed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. PCIT in (order dated 13.08.2021). The CIT(A) has elaborately extracted the order of the Tribunal in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) (refer para 8.1 of the CIT(A)’s order). Therefore, we are not reiterating the same in this order. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) had categorically held that with regard to interest / dividend income earned out of investments made with banks / government securities is not entitled to deduction either under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) and the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. PCIT (surpa), we hold that CIT(A) is justified in not granting deduction either under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act with respect to the interest income earned on investments made with co-operative banks / scheduled banks.
9.1.3 The learned AR, during the course of hearing before the Tribunal, had contended that assessee ought to be allowed cost of funds with regard to interest income that is assessed under section 56 of the Act. We find this prayer of the assessee has been duly heeded to by the CIT(A) by allowing ground No.7 raised before him. The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2015) 58 taxmann.com 35 (Karnataka), had directed the AO to allow cost of funds.
9.1.4 Further, assessee has also raised the contention in the grounds that interest received from certain co-operative banks is on account of compliance with Rule 28 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. Therefore, it constitutes income from business of providing credit facilities to its members and hence the same is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This identical contention of the assessee has also been dealt with by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. PCIT (supra). The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, in the aforesaid case, had restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows:
“18. The issue raised by the Assessee in the aforesaid grounds require examination because if there are statutory compulsions that the money should be invested in a particular manner to run business of the Assessee then the interest income arising from such investments have business nexus and should be considered as income derived from the business of providing credit facility to the members. This aspect requires examination by the AO as it has not been raised before the CIT. We therefore modify the order of the CIT by remanding the issue raised in ground No.5 to 7 alone to the AO for examination afresh. In other respects we confirm the order of the CIT.”
9.1.5 In light of the aforesaid order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to examine whether interest income is earned out of investments which are in compliance under the relevant Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules and Act. If the same is found to be out of compulsions, the interest income derived would be entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. With the aforesaid observations, we restore grounds 5 to 8 to the files of the AO. It is ordered accordingly.
9.2 Issue No. 3 : Deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act (Ground 3)
9.2.1 During the relevant Assessment Year, assessee society had earned income of Rs.1,71,588/- which was claimed as deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction due to the absence of any details furnished to establish the entire facts (refer pages 3 to 5 of the Assessment Order).
9.2.2 Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the FAA. It was submitted before the FAA that assessee society had earned commission income from MASS Ltd., a co-operative society by marketing the arecanut grown by the members. It is claimed that a copy of the agreement was submitted along with the submissions dated 11.10.2022. The CIT(A), however, dismissed and upheld the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) stated that agreement has not been enclosed along with the submission and there is no indication as to how signing of the agreement facilitate the complete marketing of the agricultural produce of its members which shall include performance of activities involved in the flow of agricultural produce from the point of initial agricultural production till they reach hands of the ultimate users / consumers.
9.2.3 Aggrieved, assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR had submitted that in the return of income the assessee had mistakenly claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee ought to have claimed the deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act. It was submitted that agreement entered with MASS Ltd., is to provide infrastructure facilities such as space to unload, inspect and store the arecanut received from members of MASS Ltd. Therefore, the agreement is to provide necessary storage facilities to stock the goods until dispatched to MASS Ltd., and the assessee society has no right over the arecanuts received. It was submitted that the commission income earned from MASS Ltd., is in return for providing space for storage of goods and therefore entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act.
9.2.4 The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
9.2.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee has wrongly claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act instead of claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act. Assessee has also not furnished the necessary documents before the AO. Consequently, the claim of deduction was not granted by the AO. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that this issue needs to be examined afresh by the AO. Therefore, as regards the claim of deduction of Rs.1,71,568/- whether assessee is entitled to deduction under any of the limbs under section 80P of the Act shall be examined afresh. Assessee shall furnish necessary materials / evidences to substantiate its claim. It is ordered accordingly.
9.3 Issue No. 3 : Deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act (Ground 9)
9.3.1 Assessee had made a claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,39,200/-. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction due to the absence of details to establish the entire facts (refer pages 9 and 10 of Assessment Order).
9.3.2 Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee filed appeal before the FAA. The CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by holding that the activities of storing the pledged agricultural produce against loans given do not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act.
9.3.3 Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The assessee, before the Tribunal, submitted that it provides loans against agricultural produce. Therefore, providing loan against pledged article is incident to providing credit facilities to its members. Hence, it is attributed to the business income eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
9.3.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee had made claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act before the income-tax authorities. The claim of deduction was denied by the AO since complete facts were not produced before him. Before the Tribunal, assessee submits that it is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act since assessee gives loans on agricultural produce to its members which is incidental to its business; hence, eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We are of the view that the issue raised in ground No.9 also requires to be adjudicated since full details were not available before the AO. For adjudicating this issue, matter is restored to the files of the AO. It is ordered accordingly.
9.3.5 Therefore, ground No.9 is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.