2022 (8) TMI 1016 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remits appeal, stresses compliance with statutes, orders fresh assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the primary issues back to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for fresh examination in light ... Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO held that the assessee has violated the principle of mutuality since it was dealing with non-members - contended that majority of the interest income is earned out of investments made with Central Co-operative Banks and is in compliance with the requirement under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules - HELD THAT:- If the amounts are invested in compliance with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, necessarily, the same is to be assessed as income from business, which entails the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. Insofar as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act is concerned, we make it clear that interest income received out of investments with co-operative societies is to be allowed as deduction. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] had settled various issues for claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Thus the matter needs to be examined afresh by the A.O. de hors the observations of the CIT. The A.O. is directed to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in framing the fresh assessment. Thus, this issue is remitted to the files of the A.O. for fresh consideration in the light of our above observation. Interest income earned from other sources from deposits with banks are not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- As the assessment year involved in the present appeal is A.Y. 2017-2018 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] is directly on the issue. Being so, the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited [2021 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which is relating to assessment year 2018-2019, cannot be applied to the present case, and accordingly, the argument put forth by the learned DR is rejected. Unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- As in the interest of justice and equity, we remit the matter to the files of the A.O. to give directions to the assessee to furnish PAN and name and address of the respective members who deposited the amount into the account of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to consider the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Classification of interest income under the head 'Income from other sources'.3. Addition of cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i):The assessee, an agricultural credit co-operative society, was denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the grounds that it violated the principle of mutuality by dealing with non-members. The A.O. relied on the Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr., which clarified that co-operative societies extending credit facilities are entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) even if loans are given to non-members, as long as the profits attributable to transactions with non-members are excluded from the deduction. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the A.O. for fresh consideration in light of this judgment.2. Classification of Interest Income:The A.O. classified the interest income earned from investments with banks as 'Income from other sources' and denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO, which held that interest income from surplus funds is taxable under 'Income from other sources' and not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, interest income from investments with co-operative societies is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the A.O. for fresh consideration, emphasizing the compliance with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.3. Addition of Cash Deposits under Section 69A:The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.29,63,000 made by the A.O. under section 69A, treating it as unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed that the amount was received from its members during the demonetization period. The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Sri Bhageeratha Pattinsa Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. ITO, where it was held that amounts collected from members and deposited into the bank account cannot be treated as unexplained money. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish the addresses and PANs of the members who deposited the cash. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the A.O. to allow the assessee to provide these details for verification.4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:The assessee contested the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, but it is implied that the resolution of the primary issues would impact the final determination of interest liability.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the primary issues back to the A.O. for fresh examination in light of the judicial precedents and compliance requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the A.O. to follow the Supreme Court's dicta and consider the statutory compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes, directing the A.O. to re-examine the issues afresh.