TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs. 1,58,305. The appellant humbly prays for the grant of deduction of Rs. 1,58,305/- u/s 80P of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or omit any of the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Housing cooperative society and has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2019-20 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs.1,58,305/-and setoff of loss of Rs1,20,750/-.Subsequently the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Whereas the AO/CPC has denied the claim of setoff of loss and has not allowed deduction of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the cooperative bank is an urban commercial bank and does not fall under the purview of cooperative society referred in the Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore the interest income from cooperative banks has to be taxed under income from other sources and assessed the total in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Claimed by the Assessee u/s 143(1). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing Appeals who has confirmed the addition by dismissing Appeals. Filling aggrieved Assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present Appeal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the parties to the Appeals, perused the order passed by the Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the law applicable thereto. 6. Undisputedly Assessee Society has invested is surplus funds with Co-Operative banks and earned the interest income to the tune of Rs. 6,96,725/- and claimed it is deduction u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, which has been disallowed by Assessing Officer confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar s Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having being decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. in ITA No.561/M/2021 order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No.3155/Mum/2019, dated 29.11.2019, wherein the Tribunal had observed as under: 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought, for adjudicating, as to whether the claim of the assessee for deduction under section. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from the investments/deposits made with the co-operative banks is in order, or not. In our considered view, the issue involved in the present appeal revolves around the adjudication of the scope and gamut of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P as had been made available on the statute, vide the Finance Act 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007. On a perusal of the order passed by the Pr.CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, we find, that he was of the view that pursuant to insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P, the assessee would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) in respect of the interest income that was earned on the amounts which were parked as investments/deposits with cooperative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural and rural development bank. However, at the same time, we are unable to subscribe to his view that the aforesaid amendment would jeopardise the claim of deduction of a co-operative society under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of its interest income investments/deposits parked with a co- operative bank. In our considered view, as long as it is proved that the interest income is being derived by a cooperative society from its investments made with any other co-operative society, the claim of deduction under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d) would be duly available. We find that the term cooperative society had been defined under Sec. 2(19) of the Act, as under:- (19) Cooperative society means a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any state for the registration of cooperative societies; We are of the considered view, that though the cooperative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a cooperative bank continues to be a co-operative society ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) on the interest income on the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a cooperative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d). At the same time, we find, that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had observed, that the interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken by the Pr. CIT that the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 31.08.2017 was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the Act set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017. 8. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Pr. CIT Anr. Vs. Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 292 ITR 74 (Kar.) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) had held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investment held with cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 9. So following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (supra), we are of the considered view that assessee society who has earned an amount of Rs. Rs. 6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
