9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 764 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - assessee is not eligible for claiming 80P deduction regarding its interest income derived from cooperative banks etc - Revenue for having accepted the assessee s claim involving interest amount derived from parking of funds in various cooperative banks involving varying sums, as eligible for the section 80P deduction - HELD THAT - As decided in RENA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. 2022 (1) TMI 419 - ITAT PUNE A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and allowed the assessee s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for dislodging the same. Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263 of the Act, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we set-aside his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3). We adopt the foregoing detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to reverse the ld. Pr.CIT s impugned revision directions. The Assessing Officer s corresponding regular assessment stands restored - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee's interest income from investments in cooperative banks for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (Pr.CIT) revision of the Assessing Officer's (AO) order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the Assessee's Interest Income for Deduction under Section 80P: The core issue revolves around whether the interest income of Rs. 1,07,27,570/- earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Pr.CIT contended that this interest income should be classified as "Income from Other Sources" and not as "business income" eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d). The Pr.CIT's detailed revision discussion highlighted that the interest income earned from investments in cooperative banks does not constitute operational or business income of the assessee society. Instead, it should be taxed under "Income from Other Sources" because it arises from surplus funds not immediately required for business. The Pr.CIT emphasized that Section 80P(2)(a) allows deduction only for business income arising from the assessee's business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, where the principle of mutuality is fulfilled. Consequently, the interest income from investments in cooperative banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d). In response, the assessee argued that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries before accepting the Section 80P deduction claim. The assessee maintained that it is a cooperative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, and the surplus funds invested in cooperative banks were a statutory requirement under the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960. The assessee cited various judgments supporting its claim that interest income from such investments qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). 2. Validity of the Pr.CIT's Revision under Section 263: The Pr.CIT exercised revision jurisdiction under Section 263, asserting that the AO's order dated 30.11.2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr.CIT argued that the AO failed to properly examine the eligibility of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P. Specifically, the AO did not verify whether the loans/deposits taken from members were given back to members as loans/advances, thus failing to substantiate the principle of mutuality. The Pr.CIT noted that the assessee received deposits from members amounting to Rs. 38.87 Cr, but only Rs. 30.59 Cr was advanced to members, leaving around Rs. 18.87 Cr unutilized and invested in time deposits with various banks. This aspect was not verified by the AO, rendering the assessment order legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Pr.CIT set aside the AO's order for proper verification of facts and re-examination of the assessee's claim under Section 80P. Tribunal's Judgment: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and reversed the Pr.CIT's revision directions. The Tribunal referred to a recent coordinate bench order in a similar case (Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad) where it was held that interest income derived from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal emphasized that cooperative banks, being registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, continue to be cooperative societies, and thus, interest income from such investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal adopted the detailed reasoning from the cited case and concluded that the AO's order, which allowed the deduction under Section 80P, was a plausible view. Therefore, the Pr.CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by revising the AO's order under Section 263. The Tribunal restored the AO's regular assessment order, allowing the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction under Section 80P for interest income from investments in cooperative banks and reversing the Pr.CIT's revision directions. The AO's original assessment order was restored.
|
