ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE CO-OP HOUSING FEDERATION LTD, BHOPAL

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

AY 2017-18: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT(A), Bhopal, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,11,534/- made on account of interest on FDRs and Saving Bank Accounts when the said interest income was no attributable to the business of the assessee of providing credit faci8lities to the members and was not exempt by virtue of provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”

– AY 2018-19: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,26,38,223/- made on account of interest on FDRs and Saving Bank Accounts when the said interest income was not attributable to the business of the assessee of providing credit facilities to the members and was not exempt by virtue of provisions of sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”

Page 2 of 4 allowed the same by following the decision of ITAT in favour of assessee in earlier years. The relevant portion of CIT(A)’s order is re-produced below:

“5.0 The most important point of the appellant is that the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant’s own case in similar facts have given decision in appellant’s favour, The list of ITAT orders is as follow:- . ACIT, 1(2), Bhopal vs. M/s. M.P. State Coop. Housing Federation Society, Bhopal for A.Y. 2009-10 in I.T.A.No. 7/Ind/2013 dated 09.05.2013 (ITAT, Indore). . The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/s. M.P. State Coop. Housing Federation Society, Bhopal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in I.T.A.Nos. 560, 607/Ind/2014 and 02/Ind/2016 dated 04.10.2016 (ITAT, Indore). . The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/s. M.P. State Coop. Housing Federation Society, Bhopal for A.Y. 2013-14 in I.T.A.No. 1051/Ind/2016 dated 27.03.2017 ( ITAT, Indore.)” XXX

5.4 On identical issue has also been decided by ITAT, Indore Bench for the assessment years 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the case of the appellant itself. While deciding the appeal of the assessee for the assessment-year 2006-07, the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.2.2012 in has held that :- “8. The assessee was having income on the deposits with Bank, U.T.I. These deposits were made out of the surplus fund available with the assessee in the intervening period of making the advances and recovery of the loans. The ITAT, Indore Bench has decided in the case cited supra that interest on IDBI Bonds and FDRs quality for deduction u/s 80P. Even in the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Coop. Bank Limited (supra), the interest on Indira Vikas Patras, Kisan Vikas Patras, UTI and IDBI Bonds was found qualified for deduction u/s 80P. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehsana District Central Coop. Bank Limited vs. ITO, has held that there is nothing in phraseology, of section 80P(2)(a)(i), which makes it applicable only to income derived from working or circulating capital. Even interest income from IVPs has also, held eligible for deduction. Respectfully following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts and also ITAT, we hold that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the interest income from fixed deposits with the Banks and interest from S. B. Account, interest on deposits with U.T.I.” 5.5 Respectfully following all above judicial pronouncements, in the sake of the facts of the case, held that this issue is squarely covered by various

Page 3 of 4 decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee wherein it was categorically held that “the interest earned on deposits with bank, FDRs and saving bank accounts is an integral part of business activity of providing credit facilities to its members and, therefore, covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act”. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.”

5. Therefore, the CIT(A) has passed impugned order in favour of assessee following the view taken by ITAT in earlier years. Ld. DR for revenue has not shown that the decision given by ITAT in earlier years has been reversed by higher forum. Being so, we do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by CIT(A). Consequently, the same are upheld. The revenue fails in these appeals.

Order pronounced in open court on 11.10.2024