TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri M.G. Jasnani For the Respondent : None ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both these appeals preferred by the Revenue emanates from separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune, dated 17-08- 2020 and 11-09-2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 as per the following common grounds of appeal. Vasantrao Naik Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit : 1. The CIT (A) erred both on facts and in law in passing the order. 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance uls 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,51,97,388/- representing interest income of the assessee society out of its investments with other co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction either uls 80P(2)(a)(i) or uls 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. In the case of Karnataka High Court vs. The Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society , in Appeal No. 100069 of 2016 dated 05-01-2017, the Hon'ble High Court has decided whether for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co-operative Bank should be considered as a Co-operative Society or not. However, the Appeal No. 100066/2016 Connected cases dated 16-06-2017, the Hon'ble Court has discussed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days whereas appeal in ITA No. 75/PUN/2021 the case of Shri Sainath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit is barred by 127 days. The ld. D.R sought condonation of delay in filing these appeals in view of outbreak of Covid 19 at the relevant time. Taking into consideration the outbreak of Covid 19, at the relevant time, the said delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. 4. That so far as the merits are concerned, the only grievance of the Revenue is the deletion of disallowance u/s 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Taking ITA No. 75/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 in the case of Shri Sainath Nagari Sahakari Patsnastha Maryadit as a lead case, we find that the facts are that the A.O while denying the claim of the assessee has held that the assessee has to be treated as a Co-operative Bank looking at the nature of its activities vis- -vis new members and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) and host of other orders reiterating the similar view, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order in allowing deduction u/s.80P on the interest income. 7. Similarly, in another decision of Pune Tribunal in ITA No. 713/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, order dated 09-04-2019, it was observed and held as follows: 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the ld. CIT s entire order is premised on the proposition that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P on the amount of interest on FDRs earned from nationalized banks. The decision that a higher amount ought to have been taxed by the AO is a consequence of the above view. The ld. AR placed on record a copy of an order of the Pune Bench dated 28-11-2018 in the case of ITO Vs. Sureshdada Jain Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha (ITA No.589/PN/2016) wherein the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s.80P was approved by the Pune Tribunal. It is further noticed that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to enable the completion of the assessment, cannot be stretched so far so as to bring the entire amount of interest received from bank to tax which is otherwise deductible in view of various decisions discussed in the preceding para. Once we hold that the entire amount of interest is eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act, the order of the ld. CIT directing the AO to charge to tax the full amount of interest and not its part, becomes automatically unsustainable. We, therefore, vacate the impugned order. 8. Further on the same facts and circumstances, and on an identical issue in another decision of Pune Tri8bunal in ITA 265/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12, order dated 27-01-2022, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee with the following observations. 3. We have heard the rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA No.713/PUN/2016) decided the question of availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by noticing that the Pune ITAT in an earlier case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
