A co-operative credit society not categorized as a co-operative bank under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act is entitled to deductions for income under Sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):

The facts in all the three appeals are similar and issues arising are identical. The decision on facts and law for one appeal for any assessment year would answer the issue involved in the other two years. Therefore, all the three appeals are being decided by the common order for the sake of brevity. The facts only in ITA no. 697/MUM/2024 are being narrated as under:

ITA No. 697/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2014–15

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Mumbai– 26/10530/2016–17 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 56,64,970/– made vide assessment order dated 21.12.2016 and dismissed assessee‟s appeal.

2. (i) The brief facts state that the assessee is a co–operative credit society, registered under Maharashtra co–operative society Act, 1960 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to those CIDCO employees who are members of credit society. The assessee e–filed its return of income on 29.11.2014, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee responded and filed required details. During the year, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 56,64,971/– from business and claimed deduction u/s. 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 56,64,971/–. Learned assessing officer held that assessee‟s credit society fell under the category of primary co–operative bank and therefore, the provisions of section 80P(4) is applicable in assessee‟s case and disallowed assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank and taking support from the Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed in Totgar‟s Co–operative Sale Society Ltd. V ITO, [2010]322 ITR 283(SC), dismissed assessee‟s appeal.

3. The assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order, disallowing the assessee co–operative society‟s whole amount of profits and gains of Rs. 56,64,971/– claimed u/s. 80P of the Act.

4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.

5. We have perused the material on record and heard learned representatives for both the parties.

6. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether the appellant CIDCO Employees Credit Society is a co-operative bank within the meaning of section 80P(4) of the Act. If not, the effect thereof ?

7. Learned AR has submitted that the assessee is a co–operative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members exclusively. It is not carrying on the business of banking. He has submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by the co–ordinate bench of ITA T Mumbai in ITA no. 450/MUM/2019, for A.Y. 2014–15, The University of Mumbai Employees co–op. credit society