2015 (9) TMI 1403 - AT - Income Tax

Entitlement to benefit of Section 80P - interest income received on fixed deposit kept with Nationalized bank, commission income and other income - Held that - The assessee society s main object is to give credit facilities to its members from the funds received from the members by way of collection of deposits from its members in the common fund and such common fund is deployed in the form of granting loan to the members of the society. As the co-op. credit society is engaged in the money lending business it has to maintain certain liquid funds as per various rules and regulations and also to meet the minimum requirement of the funds. As a measure of safety minimum liquid and convenience of fund movement the appellant society had to keep its surplus liquid funds with different banks including nationalized banks. Therefore, in view of above discussion and relying on the decision of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-op. Ltd.(2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ), the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act; however, rent income at ₹ 18,600, commission income at ₹ 13,701, other income ₹ 400 and incometax refund of ₹ 13,271 totalling to ₹ 45,542/- is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act - Decided partly in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of interest income, commission income, and other income under section 80P of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings.

Issue 1: Addition of Income under Section 80P:
The appellant's appeal arose from the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of interest income, commission income, and other income under section 80P of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) based the decision on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Totgars Co-op. Sale Society Ltd., holding that interest income from investments in institutions other than cooperative banks is taxable under section 56 and not eligible for deduction under section 80P. The Tribunal considered the appellant's primary objective of providing credit facilities and the nature of surplus funds invested in nationalized banks. Relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-op. Ltd., the Tribunal allowed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income from nationalized banks but disallowed other income like rent, commission, and income tax refund. Thus, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on this issue.

Issue 2: Validity of Assessment under Section 143(3):
The appellant contended that the assessment was bad in law, invalid, and illegal, seeking its quashing. Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case after hearing the ld. DR and examining the records. The assessment was framed by the ITO under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, and the appellant challenged the addition made by the ITO. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the grounds raised by the appellant regarding the assessment's validity and legality. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's contentions and proceeded to decide the case based on the material on record.

Issue 3: Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The appellant raised a concern about the direction to charge interest under sections 234B and 234C without proper application of mind, deeming it unjustified. The Tribunal considered this issue as consequential and decided accordingly without delving into detailed analysis. It was noted that the charging of interest under these sections was a consequential aspect of the overall decision on the case.

Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The appellant disputed the initiation of penalty proceedings, claiming it to be erroneous due to the absence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal deemed the initiation of penalty proceedings premature and hence did not adjudicate on this issue, stating that it required no further consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty proceedings initiated against the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues raised by the appellant concerning the addition of income under section 80P, the validity of the assessment under section 143(3), the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on the issue of income addition under section 80P, upheld the assessment's validity, considered the interest charging as consequential, and deemed the penalty proceedings premature for adjudication.