2020 (12) TMI 590 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 80P(2) - AO denied the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee was essentially doing the business of banking and disbursement of agricultural loans by the assessee was only minuscule - HELD THAT - AO after perusing the narration of the loan extracts for the financial periods under consideration, came to the conclusion that out of the total loan disbursement, only a minuscule portion has been advanced for agricultural purposes. The narration in loan extracts/audit reports by itself may not conclusive to prove whether loan is a agricultural loan or a non-agricultural loan. The gold loans may or may not be disbursed for the purpose of agricultural purposes. Necessarily, the A.O. had to examine the details of each loan disbursement and determine the purpose for which the loans were disbursed, i.e., whether it is for agricultural purpose or non-agricultural purpose. In this case, such a detailed examination has not been conducted by the A.O's. In the light of the dictum laid down in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT we are of the view that there should be fresh examination by the Assessing Officer as regards the nature of each loan disbursement and purpose for which it has been disbursed, i.e., whether it for agricultural purpose or not. A.O. shall list out the instances where loans have disbursed for non-agricultural purposes and accordingly conclude that the assessee's activities are not in compliance with the activities of primary agricultural credit society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2).

Summary

Issues:
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's order denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A), contesting the denial of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, claiming the assessee was primarily engaged in banking activities, rendering them ineligible for the deduction under section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act effective from 01.04.2007. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on the finding that the agricultural credit provided by the assessee was minimal, not qualifying them as a primary agricultural credit society. The appeal was rejected by the CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years.

Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal referred to conflicting judgments of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the cases of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Cooperative Bank Ltd. and The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a detailed examination of each loan disbursement to ascertain if they were for agricultural purposes. Following the precedent set by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in The Mavilayi case, the Tribunal ordered a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer to determine the nature of each loan disbursement and its purpose before denying the deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the I.T. Act. The issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further evaluation in line with the Full Bench's decision.

As a result of the decision, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the stay applications were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the assessee to cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the fresh examination process and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of a detailed examination of loan disbursements to determine eligibility for deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, as per the Full Bench's ruling. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law and precedents cited.