2022 (8) TMI 256 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Claim denied as interest income was not received from investments with other co-operative societies - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT ( 2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT held that, when the assessee is registered as a Co-operative Society under the respective State Acts, the interest income received for providing credit facilities to its members is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Thus we remit the issues raised in this appeal to the file of Ld.AO. The Ld.AO is directed to examine the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - We notice that an identical issue was restored to the file of the A.O. by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Thannirupantha Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. 2021 (8) TMI 68 - ITAT BANGALORE - Thus following the above said decision we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh. Alternative claim that the expenses incurred to earn the interest income should be allowed u/s 57(iii) of the Act, if it claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) is not allowed - Since we have already restored the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, we restore this alternative contention also to the file of the A.O., since the claim of the assessee gets support from the decision rendered in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.Vs. ITO 2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT .

Issues Involved:

1. Erroneous and arbitrary order by CIT(A) without appreciating relevant material facts and law.
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by CIT(A).
3. Nature of credit facilities provided by the appellant.
4. Membership categories and their rights.
5. Disallowance of interest income earned from deposits with Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank.
6. Statutory compulsion of deposits and eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
7. Precedents supporting the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
8. Misplaced reliance on the judgment of Pr. CIT Vs Totgar Co-operative Sale Society.
9. Distinction between statutory deposits and surplus investments.
10. Eligibility of interest income from cooperative societies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
11. Precedents supporting the claim of deduction for interest income from cooperative societies.
12. Double jeopardy in disallowing interest income.
13. Excessive disallowances confirmed by CIT(A).
14. Arbitrary levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
15. General grounds for appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Erroneous and Arbitrary Order by CIT(A):
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) upheld the AO's order without appreciating relevant material facts and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Pr. CIT & Anr. v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, which was deemed misplaced.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appellant's contentions and failed to pass a speaking order, thereby violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting the lack of detailed reasoning in the CIT(A)'s order.

3. Nature of Credit Facilities Provided by the Appellant:
The appellant provided credit facilities only to its members and not to the general public or nominal members. The Tribunal recognized this distinction, emphasizing that the appellant's operations were within the scope of cooperative society activities.

4. Membership Categories and Their Rights:
The appellant's society had Associate Members and Regular Members, both associated with journalism and print media. The Tribunal acknowledged that Associate Members did not have voting rights until they became resident members, and credit facilities were extended only to these categories, not to Nominal Members.

5. Disallowance of Interest Income from Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank:
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs. 14,22,213/- earned from deposits with the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank. The Tribunal noted that the interest income was earned from statutory deposits, which should be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

6. Statutory Compulsion of Deposits and Eligibility for Deduction:
The appellant argued that the deposits with the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank were made under statutory compulsion and not from surplus funds. The Tribunal agreed that such statutory deposits should qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

7. Precedents Supporting Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i):
The appellant cited several precedents where interest earned by credit cooperative societies on deposits with banks was deemed eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found these precedents relevant and supportive of the appellant's claim.

8. Misplaced Reliance on Pr. CIT Vs Totgar Co-operative Sale Society:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and AO's reliance on the Totgar Co-operative Sale Society judgment was misplaced, as it did not consider deductions under section 80P(2)(d) for statutory deposits but only for surplus investments.

9. Distinction Between Statutory Deposits and Surplus Investments:
The Tribunal emphasized that the interest income from statutory deposits should be distinguished from surplus investments, and the former should be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

10. Eligibility of Interest Income from Cooperative Societies:
The Tribunal acknowledged that interest income earned from deposits with cooperative societies engaged in banking should be allowed as a deduction under section 80P(2)(d), as supported by various judgments.

11. Precedents Supporting Deduction for Interest Income from Cooperative Societies:
The appellant cited judgments that upheld the deduction for interest income from cooperative societies. The Tribunal found these precedents persuasive and directed the AO to consider them.

12. Double Jeopardy in Disallowing Interest Income:
The appellant argued that disallowing the interest income of Rs. 14,22,213/- when the entire income of Rs. 54,84,033/- was already disallowed amounted to double jeopardy. The Tribunal agreed and directed the AO to reconsider this aspect.

13. Excessive Disallowances Confirmed by CIT(A):
The appellant contended that the disallowances confirmed by the CIT(A) were arbitrary and excessive. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the disallowances in light of the appellant's submissions and relevant precedents.

14. Arbitrary Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The appellant argued that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C for failure to pay advance tax was arbitrary and unjustified. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the levy of interest after re-examining the appellant's tax liability.

15. General Grounds for Appeal:
The appellant raised additional grounds for appeal, seeking justice and equity. The Tribunal remitted the case to the AO for a fresh examination of all issues, ensuring that the appellant's contentions were duly considered.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remitted the issues raised in the appeal to the AO for re-examination in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT. The AO was directed to consider the appellant's claims for deductions under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) afresh, taking into account relevant precedents and statutory provisions. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.

← Previous Next →