VEEJ KAMGAR CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NANDED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH: PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.532 & 533/
PUN/2024, for assessment years 2018-2019 & 2020-2021,
arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the
“NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/
250/2023-24/1059879298(1) & 1059884629(1), both dated
18.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); assessment year-wise;
respectively.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s
behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 ITA.Nos.532 & 533/PUN./2024
It emerges at the outset that the assessee; a co-
operative credit society; is aggrieved against both the learned
lower authorities identical action disallowing it’s
sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction(s) of Rs.4265716/- and
Rs.85,87,112/-; assessment year-wise; respectively;
representing interest income(s) derived from cooperative
society(ies)/cooperative bank(s) and nationalized bank(s); as
the case may be; on the ground that the same have not been
derived from providing credit facilities to the members
concerned.
Learned DR vehemently drawn strong support from
both the learned lower authorities identical action that the
assessee’s interest income derived from members only than
those from such investments; which only entitled for
sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction.
We note in this factual backdrop that this tribunal’s
recent coordinate bench’s order ITA.No.261/PUN./2023
Subordinate Engineers Association MSEB Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd vs. ITO dated 16.05.2023 has rejected the
Revenue’s very stand as under :
“2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee
is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of
providing banking or credit facilities to its members. The
assessee filed return claiming deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of
3 ITA.Nos.532 & 533/PUN./2024
the Act in relation to interest income earned from a
nationalized bank, namely, Oriental Bank Ltd., Kolhapur
amounting to Rs.5,16,876/-. The Assessing Officer denied
the benefit of deduction u/s.80P, which came to be
countenanced in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the
assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the
relevant material on record. There is no appearance from
the side of the assessee despite notice. The sole issue
agitated in the extant appeal on the allowability of
deduction u/s.8P(2)(a)(i) is no more res integra. I find the
Pune Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari
Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA
No.713/PUN/2016) has decided the question of
availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by
noticing that the Pune Bench in an earlier case of Shri
Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs.
ITO (ITA No.604/PN/2014) has allowed similar deduction.
In the said case, the Tribunal discussed the contrary
views expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in
Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs.
ITO (2015) 230 Taxman 309 (Kar.) allowing deduction u/s.
80P on interest income and that of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in Mantola Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. Vs.
CIT (2014) 110 DTR 89 (Delhi) not allowing deduction
4 ITA.Nos.532 & 533/PUN./2024
u/s.80P on interest income earned from banks. Both the
Hon’ble High Courts took into consideration the ratio laid
down in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd.
(supra). No direct judgment from the Hon’ble jurisdictional
High Court on the point having been pointed out, the
Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat
Sanstha Maryadit (supra) preferred to go with the view in
favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Karnataka High
Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit
Cooperative Ltd. (supra). The position continues to remain
the same before this Tribunal also. Respectfully following
the precedent, the impugned order is overturned and the
interest income earned from the deposits kept with
nationalised bank amounting to Rs.5,16,876/- is allowed
as deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
We adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis
mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant identical ground in
both these assessment years in very terms. Ordered
accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.532 & 533/
PUN./2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common
order be placed in the respective case files.
5 ITA.Nos.532 & 533/PUN./2024
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2024
Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 30th August, 2024.
VBP/-
Copy to
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The DR ITAT B-Bench, Pune. 5. Guard file.
//By Order//
//True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT Pune Benches : Pune
