THUDANGANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THUDANGANAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, THODUPUZHA

Learned counsel submits at the outset that both the lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) income(s) or Rs.61,90,159/- and Rs.6,39,100/-; respectively, despite the fact that the legal position Thudanganad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. is indeed well settled that such receipts arising from co-operative society members as well as deposits made in co-operative bank qualify for the same.

The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, is that the assessee could not substantiate its impugned deduction claim regarding former head of income and the latter sum derived from deposits in co-operative bank is not eligible going by Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC).

Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits in rebuttal that the assessee had although filed some details containing list of the concerned members under the former head, the same is wrongly taken as receipts from deposits only. We deem it appropriate in this peculiar facts that the Assessing Officer needs to reexamine the instant former head of income amounting to Rs.61,90,159/- in light of the assessee’s relevant details filed during the course of assessment. We further wish to clarify here that nothing shall come in either assessee’s way or that of the Assessing Officer in case the former once again filed all the relevant KYC documents supporting the former interest income in consequential proceedings.

So far as assessee’s interest income of Rs. 6,39,100/- is concerned, we find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Pr. CIT vs. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) has settled the issue against the department. We thus partly accept the assessee’s instant substantive ground regarding the latter head of interest income, i.e. Rs. 6,39,100/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.