KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 August 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the Section 80P deduction for interest income earned from co-operative banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For the appeal involving Section 68 additions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a service co-operative bank, claimed deduction under Section 80P on interest income from deposits made in co-operative banks. The lower authorities disallowed this deduction, treating it as income from other sources. Additionally, one appeal involved additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Whether additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Hearing: 14.08.2024Pronounced: 14.08.2024

Heard together (8 matters)

ITA No.837/Coch/2023
SA No.188/Coch/2023
ITA No.838/Coch/2023
SA No.189/Coch/2023
ITA No.839/Coch/2023
SA No.190/Coch/2023
ITA No.840/Coch/2023
SA No.191/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Asst.Year 2016-2017 & SA No.190/Coch/2023 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & SA No.191/Coch/2023 Karakulam Service Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited, KP-1/382 Ward – 2(3) v. Trivandrum. Karakulam PO, Nedumangad Trivandrum – 695 564. PAN : AAAAT7698C. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Suresh Kumar, CA Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s four appeals to 840/Coch/2023 (alongwith its as many stay applications SA Nos.188-191/Coch/2023 therein) , arise against the & SA Nos.188-191/Coch/2023 Karakulam Service Co-op Society Ltd. CIT(A)/NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1055497733(1) (for asst.year 2011-2012), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055498115(1) (for asst.year 2012-2013), ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1055493032(1) (for asst.year 2016-2017) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055492651(1) (for asst.year 2017-2018), all dated 28.08.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter, assessment year-wise, respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s appeals 838/Coch/2023 & 840/Coch/2023 for assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2017-2018 raise its identical sole substantive ground claiming sec.80P deduction claim involving various interest income from deposits made in co-operative banks disallowed in both the lower proceedings. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued that in the light of Totagar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) and Pr.CIT & Anr. v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar.), such an interest income has to be treated as income from “other” sources only. We note that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Pr.CIT v. Peroorkada SCB Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) has already decided the instant issue in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:-

& SA Nos.188-191/Coch/2023 Karakulam Service Co-op Society Ltd. “12.2 Section 80P deals with Co-operative Societies' computation of income. As already noted, it has four sections and several sub-sections and clauses. The Parliament has considered the various situations in which the exigible income and the deductable income of the assessee is considered while computing the income of the assessee. For getting deduction, in our considered view, the assessee must also establish that the interest income earned by the assessee is from a Co-operative Society. As a matter of fact, in the case on hand, there is no dispute that it is not from a Co-operative Society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The interest income earned from District Co-operative Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments with any other Co- operative Society. The source of interest income is from Bank and Treasury, interest income received from Treasury be included in the computation of total income of the assessee. In other words, interest earned from Treasury is inadmissible for deduction and interest income from Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does not come within the ambit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.”

3.

We adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant identical sole substantive ground of sec.80P deduction. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in very terms. Its three 2016-2017 wherein the assessee’s first substantive ground is found to be claiming 80P deduction only, which is accepted in light of the foregoing discussion since involving the very nature of interest income. Learned CIT-DR at this stage submits that the assessee’s instant remaining appeal also raises the latter issue of correctness of both lower authorities action making sec.68 addition of unexplained cash credit in its bank account(s). Learned counsel contends that all these cash deposits in fact pertain to the assessee’s members only which has been credited in the respective account holders name. No KYC documents appear to have been factually verified to this effect in lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication subject to the rider that the assessee itself shall plead and prove its case within three effective opportunities only; at its own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Therefore this appeal is partly allowed.

5.

Delay of 39 days in filing in all these appeals before the tribunal is condoned as per assessee’s condonation averments.

Nos.188/Coch/2023, 189/Coch/2023, 190/Coch/2023 and 191/Coch/2023 are dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of the common order be placed in the respective case files.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →