Tax Tribunal Overturns PCIT's Decision on Deduction Claim Under Section 80P(2)(d)

The tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking to revise the Assessing Officer's order disallowing the assessee's deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(d). The tribunal found the AO's decision to allow the deduction reasonable and set aside the PCIT's revision order, restoring the AO's assessment and allowing the assessee's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income derived from investments/deposits with cooperative banks.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the PCIT's Revision Order under Section 263:

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a revision order under Section 263, terming the Assessing Officer's (AO) regular assessment, which allowed the assessee's deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The PCIT argued that the interest income derived from parking surplus funds in fixed deposits with cooperative banks did not qualify for Section 80P relief.

The tribunal examined the PCIT's revision directions and found no merit in them. It was noted that the PCIT had quoted various judicial precedents to support his view. However, the tribunal referred to a recent order in a similar case (Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad) where the tribunal had declined the Revenue's identical stand, emphasizing that the AO had taken a plausible view after necessary verifications. Therefore, the PCIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking to review the AO's order under the guise of revisional powers.

2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d):

The core issue was whether the assessee's interest income from investments/deposits with cooperative banks was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT argued that cooperative banks were commercial banks and not cooperative societies, thus the interest income did not qualify for the deduction.

The tribunal analyzed the statutory provision of Section 80P(2)(d) and concluded that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society should be deducted in computing its total income. The tribunal noted that although Section 80P(4) excluded cooperative banks from the benefits of Section 80P, it did not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society to claim deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from investments with cooperative banks.

The tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements supporting this view, including cases from the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat, which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with a cooperative bank was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The tribunal also referred to the CBDT Circular No. 14, which clarified that the purpose behind Section 80P(4) was to exclude cooperative banks, functioning at par with other banks, from claiming deductions under Section 80P, but not to affect the cooperative societies' claims for deductions under Section 80P(2)(d).

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the AO had taken a possible and plausible view in allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and that the PCIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to dislodge the AO's view. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the AO's assessment order, allowing the assessee's appeal.

Order Pronouncement:

The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 13.01.2023.

---