RUPMATA ZILLA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD.,OSMANABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by: Mr Pratik Sandbhor [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 10/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 10/05/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal is instituted against DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059414888(1), dt. 05/01/2024 passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’] which in turn arisen out of order of best judgement assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur [in short ‘AO’] for the assessment year 2015-16 [in short ‘AY’]

2.2 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully assailed the aforestated ex-parte assessment in an appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. On the basis of written submissions and documents freshly adduced by the assessee in the course of first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment concluding that the assessee society as ineligible for claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act for two bullet reasons viz; (i) in the absence of details showing the amount of interest income received/earned from its members and non-members and (ii) Interest received/earned from scheduled co-operative banks or commercial banks etc., as being ineligible owning to ratio laid in ‘Totagars Co-op. Sale Society Vs ITO’ reported in 322 ITR 283 (SC).

2.3 Aggrieved assessee came in present appeal on following grounds ;

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 58,56,658/- ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 5

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) i)/80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagar Co-operative Sale Society Ltd – 188 Taxman 282 without taking cognizance of the fact that the said decision is distinguishable and has been distinguished by the various decision of Jurisdictional ITAT Pune

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction u/s80P without taking cognizance of the binding decisions of Jurisdictional ITAT, Pune relied upon by the appellant.

The above ground may be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted etc in the interest of natural justice.

3. During the course of physical hearing, the Ld. AR at the outset averred that, the issue of entitlement of deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the assessee credit society is no-more res-integra. The assessee since a credit co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its member is entitled to 80P deduction ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 5 against the interest income earned by it in the course of its business. The interest earned/received by it out of investment placed with other co-operative banks/society do qualify for deduction as such investment are made under the statutory business restriction fastened by the Reserve Bank of India and Registrar of Co-op. Society. It is further stated that, since the assessee is solitary engaged in the business of providing credit facility, the theory of surplus funds as laid in ‘Totagars Co-op. Sale Society Vs ITO’ (supra) has no application in the present case. Adverting to paper-book it is prayed that, the facts of the present case are similar to various cases decided by the co-ordinate bench wherein the deduction u/s 80P of the Act against the interest earned out of investment with co-operative banks/societies and commercial banks were allowed. Per contra, without touching merits of the case, objecting the admission of paper-book the Ld. DR assailed that, the assessee’s grounds although came to be dismissed on the basis of written submission and documents produced first time in the appellate proceedings before Ld. NFAC, however same were neither supported by cogent evidences nor were confronted to the Ld. AO for verification. It is vehemently argued by the Revenue that, the Ld. CIT(A) surpassing the compliance of rule 46A of IT-Rules, 1962 has dealt with the issue, therefore in the first instance the adjudication is suffered and hence deserves to be set-aside on this score itself.

-S/d- -S/d- ASTHA CHANDRA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE; ददनाांक / Dated : 10th day of May,2024 आदेश की प्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune 4. The NFAC / CIT(A) Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6.गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयन्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 5