Cooperative society's interest income from bank investments qualifies for section 80P(2)(d) deduction despite conflicting precedents

ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against Pr. CIT's revision order u/s 263. The dispute concerned deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks. The AO had initially allowed the deduction, but Pr. CIT revised this as prejudicial to revenue. ITAT held that where conflicting HC decisions exist, the view favoring the assessee should be preferred. Following Karnataka HC and Gujarat HC precedents, ITAT ruled that interest income from cooperative bank investments qualifies for s.80P(2)(d) deduction. Since AO's original assessment took a legally supportable view backed by jurisdictional tribunal precedent, Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional powers. The revision order was set aside and AO's assessment u/s 143(3) was restored.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 263 by Pr. CIT.
2. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from FDs with cooperative banks.
3. Validity of Pr. CIT's reliance on the Totagor Co-operative Sales judgment.
4. Direction by Pr. CIT to enhance assessed income.
5. Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT under Section 263.
6. Consideration of previous ITAT orders regarding Section 80P(2)(d) deductions.
7. Additional grounds of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 263 by Pr. CIT:
The assessee challenged the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263, arguing that the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT had invoked Section 263 on the grounds that the AO erroneously allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) without proper verification.

2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d):
The core issue was whether the interest income earned from FDs with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The assessee contended that the deduction was valid as cooperative banks are considered cooperative societies. The Pr. CIT argued that post the insertion of Section 80P(4), cooperative banks are excluded from such deductions.

3. Validity of Pr. CIT's Reliance on Totagor Co-operative Sales Judgment:
The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT erred in relying on the Totagor Co-operative Sales judgment, which pertained to Section 80P(2)(a) and not Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the cited judgment was distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.

4. Direction by Pr. CIT to Enhance Assessed Income:
The Pr. CIT directed the AO to enhance the assessed income by disallowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found this direction to be contrary to law, as the AO had already formed a plausible opinion based on existing judicial pronouncements.

5. Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT under Section 263:
The Tribunal examined whether the Pr. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263. It concluded that the AO had taken a plausible view supported by judicial precedents, and the Pr. CIT's action amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263.

6. Consideration of Previous ITAT Orders:
The assessee cited previous ITAT orders, including those in the cases of Land End Cooperative Society Ltd. and Sea Green CHS Ltd., which supported the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal acknowledged these precedents and found that the AO's original order was in line with these decisions.

7. Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee reserved the right to add, amend, or delete grounds of appeal as deemed fit. However, the Tribunal's decision on the main issues rendered this point moot.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Pr. CIT's order and restoring the AO's original assessment. It held that the AO had taken a plausible view supported by judicial precedents, and the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was unwarranted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was upheld.

---