TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from funds invested in co-operative societies. Therefore, to the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. CIT was therefore justified in exercising his powers of revision u/s.263 of the Act and directing the AO to tax interest income in question as it is neither of the nature specified in Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) - what is the quantum of interest income that should be brought to tax by the AO, in case the deduction is denied to the assessee u/s.80P(2)(d) - On this aspect, the Hon ble ITAT, Bengaluru Bench in the case of Puttur Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Vs. ITO [ 2021 (6) TMI 460 - ITAT BANGALORE] the tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed expenses and the entire gross interest cannot be taxed. The order of the CIT is modified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 15,03,175.00 , under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to ₹ 6,98,931.00 and under section 80P(2)(c ) amounting to ₹ 50,000.00 resulting total income as ₹ 36,85,030.00/-. 5. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 13-10-2017 by accepting the returned income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mysore invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 and held in order dated 19-03-2020 that the order u/s 143(3) is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the AO to revise the assessment order accordingly. 6. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT Hubali vs Totgar's cooperative society (2017) 83 Taxman 140 (Karnataka) and also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble supreme court in case of Totagar's Cooperative sale society Limited Vs ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 and passed an order under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the Assessee relied on certain judicial pronouncements, which we will refer to in the following p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ests of the Revenue. If two views are possible, and the AO has adopted one of those views, the order of assessment cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, when the Assessing Officer does not apply his mind to the issue at hand or violates any of the principles of natural justice, the order shall be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Also, an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the AO would make the order of aasessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of the The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 (SC) held that Income from utilization of surplus funds was taxable under the head income from other sources, and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80P. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (230 Taxman 309), was dealing with a case where deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was claimed on interest from the deposits made in a nationalized bank out of the amounts which was used by the assessee for providing credit facilities to its members. The Assessee claimed that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court held the assessing officer was right in taxing the interest income indicated above under Section 56 of the Act. The Court also observed that even the Hon ble Supreme made it clear that they are confining the said judgment to the facts of that case. The Court therefore concluded that Hon ble Supreme Court was not laying down any law. Similar view taken in Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2015] 377 ITR 464 (Karnataka). In the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 392 ITR 0074 (Karn) in the context of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, it was held that Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act allows deduction in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income. The Hon ble Court held that the aforesaid Supreme Court's decision in the case of Totgars (supra), was not applicable to deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, because the said decision was rendered with regard to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 11. However, the Hon ble Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing points can be culled out from the aforesaid decision: 1. society. The words 'Co-operative Banks' are missing in clause (d) of subsection (2) of Section 80P of the Act. Even though a co- operative bank may have the corporate body or skeleton of a co-operative society but its business is entirely different and that is the banking business, which is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Only the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies with their limited work of providing credit facility to its members continued to be governed by the ambit and scope of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. (Paragraph 13 of the Judgment). 2. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business income from such exemption/deduction category. The words used in Section 80P(4) are significant. They are: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent cases .. . No other binding precedent was discussed in the said judgment. Of course, the Bench has observed that a Co-operative Bank is a specie of the genus co- operative Society, with which we agree, but as far as applicability of Section 80P(2) of the Act is concerned, the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision cannot be restricted only if the income was to fall under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.(Paragraph-18 of the Judgment) 6. The Court finally concluded that it would not make a difference, whether the interest income is earned from investments/deposits made in a Scheduled Bank or in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present appeals, in view of the binding precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Paragraph 19 of the Judgment) 13. The Hon ble Karantaka High Court in the aforesaid decision also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 389 ITR 0578 (Guj) did not agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n funds not immediately required by the assessee for its business purposes and which has been invested in specified securities as investment are ineligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. (Paragraph-13 of the Judgment) 14. It can thus be seen that the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totalgars Cooperative Sales Society in 395 ITR 611 (Karn) is that in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), in case of a society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, income from investments made in banks does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However, section 80P(2)(d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from funds invested in co-operative societies. Therefore, to the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id case had put forth identical claim claim before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 188 taxmann.com 282 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide 14 of its order, had restored the question raised by the assessee to the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Consequent thereto, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the order in the case reported in 58 taxmann.com 35 and held that the Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the interest earned by the appellant is an income from other sources without allowing deduction in respect of proportionate cost, administrative expenses incurred in respect of such deposits. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. prayed that the A.O. may be directed to allow deduction of proportionate cost, administrative and other expenses, if the A.O. proposes to assess the interest income earned from bank deposits as income under the head other sources . 9. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue. We find merit in the prayer of the assessee, since it is supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
