2019 (1) TMI 1588 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO treated the interest income earned from nationlised banks /co-operative banks as income from other sources u/s. 56 - HELD THAT - Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on the profit and gains of business attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to its members and the assessing officer has correctly treated the interest income earned from banks/co-operative banks as income from other sources u/s. 56 of the act. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT 2016 (7) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT We direct the assessing officer to allow pro rata expenses in respect of interest earned from deposit held with nationalized bank and cooperative bank for computing the deduction u/s. 80P after examining/verification and affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on interest income from banks.
2. Classification of interest income as "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act.
3. Pro rata expenses related to interest income for computing deduction under Section 80P.
4. Levy of interest under Section 234A/B/C.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 80P on Interest Income from Banks:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income amounting to ?1,18,21,506/- received from nationalized and co-operative banks. The assessing officer observed that this interest income was not derived from the assessee's primary activity of providing credit facilities to its members. Instead, it was classified as "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act. The assessee contended that the interest income from short-term fixed deposits should be considered as part of circulating capital and hence eligible for tax exemption under Section 80P.

2. Classification of Interest Income as "Income from Other Sources":
The assessing officer rejected the assessee's claim, treating the interest income from nationalized and co-operative banks as "income from other sources" under Section 56. This decision was upheld by the CIT(A), who relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 72 taxman.com 64 (Guj). The Tribunal also concurred with this view, emphasizing that the interest income earned from banks is not attributable to the assessee's business operations of providing credit facilities to its members.

3. Pro Rata Expenses Related to Interest Income:
Although the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, it directed the assessing officer to allow pro rata expenses related to the interest earned from deposits held with nationalized and co-operative banks for computing the deduction under Section 80P. This decision was made after examining and verifying the relevant details and affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

4. Levy of Interest under Section 234A/B/C:
The assessee's ground of appeal regarding the levy of interest under Section 234A/B/C was dismissed as it is mandatory and as per the provisions of the Act.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271C:
The ground of appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271C was also dismissed as premature, requiring no adjudication at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision to treat the interest income from banks as "income from other sources" and not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, it directed the assessing officer to allow pro rata expenses related to this interest income for computing the deduction under Section 80P after due verification. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and other grounds related to levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31-01-2019.

← Previous Next →