Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant society directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 07.03.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21.
At the outset, I find the appeal is time barred by 74 days before the Tribunal. The appellant society filed petition praying for condonation of delay on the ground that one Shri Jayant Babu Chavan, Accountant who is looking after the Accounts and Tax matters of the society was under the treatment for multiple heart blockages. Therefore, the appellant society was unaware of the order passed by the NFAC. The delay in filing the appeal was not due to any wilful default. It is thus prayed to condone the delay of 74 days.
Having gone through the averments made in the condonation petition filed by the appellant society, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. I therefore condone the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is Cooperative Society governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and collecting deposits from its members. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2020-21 was filed on 29.12.2020 disclosing total income at Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.64,18,521/- u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for verification of (i)Investments/ Advances/Loans, (ii) High Creditors/Liabilities, and (3) Deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 05.09.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act assessing total income at Rs.41,38,277/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax the interest income of Rs.41,38,277/- earned on FDs with Cooperative Banks/Schedule Banks holding that the said interest does not qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Being aggrieved, the appellant society is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered one decided in favour of the assessee(s) in view of catena of decisions passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called for.
I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of the assessee for exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Cooperative Banks/Scheduled Banks.
As regards, the issue as to the allowability of exemption under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income earned by a cooperative society from the Cooperative banks/Scheduled banks, there is a cleavage of judicial opinion among several High Courts on the issue of eligibility of this kind of income for exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Cooperative Federation of Housing Building Societies Ltd. 11 taxmann.com 448, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mantola Co- operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT 50 taxmann.com 278, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. 389 ITR 68 and the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 230 taxmann.com 309 (Kar.) and the Hon’ble Telangana and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v CIT [(2017) 396 ITR 371 took a view that such interest income is attributable to the activities of the society and, therefore, eligible for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., 147 taxmann.com 518 (Calcutta) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO, 148 taxmann.com 17 (Madras). The Coordinate Bench of Pune Benches in the case of M/s. Ratnatray Gramin Bigar Sheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO (ITA Nos.559/560/PUN/2018, dated 11-12-2018) taken view in favour of the assessee following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra). Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the interest income earned on Fixed Deposits with Cooperative Banks/Scheduled Banks partakes character of the business income, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of September, 2024.