MAHESH URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MALKAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, AKOLA

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/03/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that interest income of Rs.3388980 earned by the appellant co-operative society on FDR(s) with banks is not an income derived by it from its business activities and is in the nature of receipts from other sources. The learned AO thus wrongly worked Income from Other Source of 2 Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 Rs.3388980. Correctly computed and declared by the appellant in accordance.

2. The assessing Officer is further wrong and has erred in law in disallowing deduction of Rs.3388980 claimed by the appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) and (2) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in not accepting plea of the appellant that interest income of Rs. 3388980 derived by it from FDR(s) with Bank is in fact income derived from a Co-operative Society within meaning of sec. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by arbitrarily holding that income from co-operative Bank is not exempt in view of expl. to sub-section (4) of sec. 80P. The impugned action of the AO is wrong and bad in law in as much as the said explanation is for the purpose of sec. 80P(4) and not whole of section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961. The denial of deduction on this amount of Rs. 3388980 by the assessing officer is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law.

4. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

“9. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the record, we find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by a catena of decisions from ITAT as well as a decision of jurisdictional High Court. In this regard we may gainfully refer the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Solapur Nagri Audyogik Sahakari Bank Ltd. 182 Taxman 231 wherein the following question was raised. “Whether the interest income received by a Co-operative Bank from investments made in Kisan Vikas Patra („KVP‟ for short) and Indira Vikas Patra („IVP‟ for short) out of voluntary reserves is income from banking business exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

3 Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 After considering the issue, the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded as under : “12. Therefore, in all these cases, where the surplus funds not immediately required for day-to-day banking were kept in voluntary reserves and invested in KVP/IVP, the interest income received from KVP/IVP would be income from banking business eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(i) of the Act.

by the Revenue in the case of MSEB Engineers Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., wherein the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, vide order dated 05/05/2016 held as under : “Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the above issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this ITA, referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. The distinction mentioned in the grounds of appeal is not at all sustainable. We further find that this Tribunal again in the case of Chattisgarh Urban Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO in vide order dated 27.05.2015 has adjudicated similar issue as under:- “11. Upon careful consideration, we not that identical issue was the subject matter of consideration by ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench decision in the case of Dhanlaxmi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd (supra), in which one of us, learned Judicial Member, was a party. The concluding portion of the Tribunal‟s decision is as under: “4. With this brief background, we have heard both the sides. It was explained that the Co-operative Society is maintaining “operations funds” and to meet any eventuality towards repayment of deposit, the Co-operative society is maintaining some liquidated funds as a short term deposit with the banks. This issue was thoroughly discussed by the ITAT “B” Bench Ahmedabad in the case of The Income Tax Officer vs. M/s.Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd., bearing (for A.Y. 2009-10) and CO No. 138/Ahd/2012 (by Assessee) order dated 31/10/2012. The relevant portion is reproduced below :- “19. The issue dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars (supra) is extracted, for appreciation of facts as under : What is sought to be taxed under section 56 of the Act is interest income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and 4. Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 securities, which surplus was not required for business purposes? The assesse(s) markets the produce of its members whose sale proceeds at times were retained by it. In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of such amount. Since the fund created by such retention was not required immediately for business purposes, it was invested in specified securities. The question before us, is whether interest on such deposits/securities, which strictly speaking accrues to the members‟ account, could be taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of „income from other sources‟ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” 19.1 However, in the present case, on verification of the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2009, it was observed that the fixed deposits made were to maintain liquidity and that there was no surplus funds with the assessee as attributed by the Revenue. However, in regard to the case before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court – “(on page 286) 7 …….. Before the assessing officer, it was argued by the assesse(s) that it had invested the funds on short term basis as the funds were not required immediately for business purposes and consequently, such act of investment constituted a business activity by a prudent businessman; therefore, such interest income was liable to be taxed under section 28 and not under section 56 of the Act and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The argument was rejected by the assessing officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s). 19.2 From the above, it emerges that (a) that assessee (issue before the Supreme Court) had admitted before the AO that it had invested surplus funds, which were not immediately required for the purpose of its business, in short term deposits; (b) that the surplus funds arose out of the amount retained from marketing the agricultural produce of the members; (c) that assessee carried on two activities, namely, (i) acceptance of deposit and lending by way of deposits to the members; and (ii)marketing the agricultural produce; and (d) that the surplus had arisen emphatically from marketing of agricultural produces. 19.3 In the present case under consideration, the entire funds were utilized for the purposes of business and there were no surplus funds. 19.4 While comparing the state of affairs of the present assessee with that assessee (before the Supreme Court), the following clinching dissimilarities emerge, namely: (1) in the case of assessee, the entire funds were utilized for the purposes of business and that there were no surplus funds:-

5 Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 - in the case of Totgars, it had surplus funds, as admitted before the AO, out of retained amounts on marketing of agricultural produce of its members; (2) in the case of present assessee, it had not carry out any activity except in providing credit facilities to its members and that the funds were of operational funds. The only fund available with the assessee was deposits from its members and, thus, there was no surplus funds as such; - in the case of Totgars, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had not spelt out anything with regard to operational funds; 19.5 Considering the above facts, we find that there is force in the argument of the assessee that the assessee not a co- operative bank, but its nature of business was coupled with banking with its members, as it accepts deposits from and lends the same to its members. To meet any eventuality, the assessee was required to maintain some liquid funds. That was why, it was submitted by the assessee that it had invested in short-term deposits. Furthermore, the assessee had maintained overdraft facility with Dena Bank and the balance as at 31.3.2009 was Rs.13,69,955/- [source : Balance Sheet of the assessee available on record]. 19.6 In overall consideration of all the aspects, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-op Sale Society Ltd (supra) cannot in any way come to the rescue of either the Ld. CIT (A) or the Revenue. In view of the above facts, we are of the firm view that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the sum of Rs.9,40,639/- was to be taxed u/s 56 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.”

5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hereby hold that the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly granted by ld. CIT(A), however, he has wrongly held that the interest income is taxable u/s 56 of the Act so do not fall under the category of exempted income u/s 80P of the Act. The adverse portion of the view, which is against the assessee, of ld. CIT(A) is hereby reversed following the decision of the Tribunal cited supra, resultantly ground is allowed.

6 Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 11. In the background of aforesaid discussion and decisions, we find that CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment order. The Appellant Co-operative society is entitled for deduction u/s 80P as claimed in the return.”