N.D.A. EMPLOYEES CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1) PUNE, PUNE

Assessment Year: 2020-21 N.D.A. Employees Co. Op. V The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited, s Ward-6(1), Pune. Khadakwasala, Warje Malwadi, Pune – 411023. PAN: AAAAN0953C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Satish Nade – AR Revenue by Shri B S Rajpurohit – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28/10/2024 Date of pronouncement 28/10/2024 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, AM :

“1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the ld.Commissioner of Income l ax (Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officer's finding that the interest and dividend earned from the funds invested in Pune District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd (PDC t Bank Ltd) of 34,65,724/- was not eligible for deduction us 80P(a)(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act as the said income was not business income but was income from other sources.

2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). NFAC has grossly erred in denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the LT. \ct 1961 to the appellant society in respect of interest dividend income of Rs.34.65.724/- earned from fixed deposits kept by it with Pune District Central cooperative bank (PDCC Bank Ltd). The aforesaid addition being patent!) illegal, had in law. arbitrary, perverse and devoid of merits. The same may please be deleted and it may be held that the aforesaid interest/dividend income is exempt u/s 80P(a)(2)(i) of the 1.1. Vet. 1961.

3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the Assessing Officer’s finding that, the appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act also as the Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd was not a Co-operative Society and furthermore due to the operation of Sec 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act.1961 a Co-operative Bank was ineligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act .1961.

4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income lax (Appeals). M AC has tailed to appreciate the fact that the Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd was primarily a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act I960 vide certificate of registration dated 30th Dec 1995, and as such, the income from interest and dividend earned In cooperative society front its investment from such Co-operative Bank (cooperative society)) of Rs.34,65.724/- was eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Vet.1961, even though the said income is taxed as income from other sources, as held In Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society vs. fTO in 188 tavmann.com 282 (SC) instead of business.

5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in last, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not following the ratio of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune's decision in the case of Rena Sahakari Sakhar Isarkhana Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tav-2, Aurangabad (ITA No. 1249/ PI N/2018 dated 07/01 2022) and in the case of Sumitra Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanshta Maryadit (ITA No.1148/PUN/2018 dated 04/11/2022), on identical-similar issue when in fact, the decisions of jurisdictional Bench of IT XT are binding in nature on all the assesses and Authorities below working in its jurisdiction considering judicial precedence.

6) The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that ITAT Pune in assessee’s own case in A.Y.2018-19 in vide order dated 26.09.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that interest earned from Co-operative Societies is eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) of the Act. The Ld.AR explained that the facts for A.Y.2020-21 are identical to the facts of A.Y.2018-19. Therefore, ld.AR for the assessee pleaded that assessee’s appeal may be allowed.

Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A).

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1 During the year, assessee has earned Interest Income of Rs.34,65,724/- from Pune District Central Co-operative Bank(PDCC). It is observed that ITAT Pune in assessee’s own case in for A.Y.2018-19 had allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that the interest and dividend earned from PDCC was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The facts are identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision for A.Y.2018-19, assessee’s appeal for A.Y.20-21 is allowed.