9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA [ 2017 (4) TMI 663 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.111/Coch/2019, ITA No.112/Coch/2019 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And Shri George George K, JM For the Appellant : Smt. A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR For the Respondent : None ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K. (JM) These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against two separate orders of the CIT(A). The relevant assessment years are 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Since common issue is raised in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act in respect of interest income received by the assessee on investments made with District Co-operative Banks, Other Banks etc. 3. Brief facts of the cases are as follows:- The assessee is a primary agricultural credit so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 7 I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue for my consideration is whether interest received on investments with sub-treasury is liable to be assessed under the head income from other sources or income from business . If the same is to be assessed under the head income from business , the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I T Act, in respect of interest received on such investments. The assessee admittedly is providing credit facilities to its members. Section 5(b) of the banking regulation Act 1948 defines banking as the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order, otherwise. Now the question is whether a cooperative society or a primary agricultural society can do banking business and whether by doing such an activity, it loses the eligibility for deduction u/s 80P2(1). The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamamitha vs ITO has clearly answered the issue. The Hon ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grant of 80P deduction. 7.2 In the instant case, the assessee do not posses any banking license from the Reserve Bank of India and is not exclusively carrying on any banking facility; but it is carrying on business of lending money to its members and therefore is covered u/s 80P(2) of the Act. The judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. (supra) relied by the CIT(A) is distinguishable on facts. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd (supra) was dealing with the case where the assessee apart from providing credit facilities to its members was also marketing agricultural produces grown by its members. Sale consideration received from the marketing of agricultural produce of its members was retained by the assessee in that case and was invested in short term deposits/securities. Such amount retained by assessee s society was shown as a liability in the balance sheet and therefore, to that extent interest income cannot be attributable neither to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) or u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. This distinguishable feature has been taken note by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX III, HYDERABAD VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence, we pass the following order: Appeal is allowed. 7.4 The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Kizhathadiyoor Service Coop Bank Ltd., on identical facts has rendered a decision in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kizhathadiyoor Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. By respectfully following the judgment of the Apex court in Karnataka State Co-operative Bank (supra), the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is upheld. 7.3 In the instant case, the assessee is a cooperative Bank. The investment in treasury/banks and earning interest on the same is part of the banking activity of the assessee s cooperative bank. Therefore, the said income is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Authorities were not justified in treating interest income received by the assessee as income from other source and denying the benefit of section 80P(2) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 7.5 In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchantgs Souharda Credit Coop Ltd (supra)and Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Service Coop Bank Ltd.,(supra), I am of the view that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2) with regard to interest received on deposits made by the assessee with sub treasury. It is ordered accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Society may claim the benefit of Clause (d) or (e) either by investing the income in another Cooperative Society or investing the income in the construction of a godown or warehouse and letting out the same. 33. In other words, the benefit conferred by Clause (d) upon all types of Co-operative Societies is restricted only to the investments made in other Co-operative Societies. Such a restriction cannot be read into Clause (a), as the temporary parking of the profits and gains of business in nationalized Banks and the earning of interest income therefrom is only one of the methods of multiplying the same income. To accept the stand of the Department would mean that Co-operative Societies carrying on the activities listed in Clauses (i) to (vii), which invest their profits and gains of business either in other Co-operative Societies or in the construction of godowns and warehouses, may benefit in terms of Clause (d) or (e), but the very same Societies will not be entitled to any benefit, if they invest the very same funds in Banks. Such an understanding of section 80P(2) is impermissible for one simple reason. The benefits under Clauses (d) and (e) are available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
