IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Moreshwar Krupa Co-Op. Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Limited, Ward-42(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, D.N. Mathre Road, vs.

Bandra Kurla Complex, Eksar, Bandra East, Mumbai-400103 Mumbai-400051 PAN: AACAM0769P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Ms. Poonam Kotkar, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 24-04-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025

O R D E R

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-Panaji [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 27-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Because the Ld. Assessing officer has erred The Appellant has filed the present appeal aggrieved by the intimation order u/s. 143(1) The grounds of appeal are as under :

2. Because the Ld. Assessing officer has erred The CPC has erred in law and on facts in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.

3,95,610/- u/s. 143(1) as against Rs. Nil returned by the Appellant.

3. Because the Ld. Assessing officer has erred The CPC has violated principle of natural Justice by restricting the response to notice proposing prima facie adjustment within 500 characters and by not permitting to attach any evidence to substantiate appellant reply.

4. Because the Ld. Assessing officer has erred The Ld. CPC has erred in law or on fact in not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,95,610/- being interest received from Co-operative Bank u/s. 80P (2) (d) claimed in the ITR 5.

5. Because the Ld. Assessing officer has erred The CPC has erred in law in levying consequential interest of Rs. 24,060/- u/s. 234B and Rs.

6,075/ u/s. 234C of IT Act, 1961 and the same may be deleted.

6. The Citations relied upon by the Hon'ble CIT Appeals is not at all applicable to the facts of the case and in the list of the Multistate Co- operative Societies Bank, Shamrao Vitthal Co-operative Bank Ltd, Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd, TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd, have been notified as a multi-state co-operative society bank from 13th November 2015 the said Notification is being a Public Document is available in the Public Domain is admissible as an evidence in any judicial proceedings.”

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered Co-operative Housing society registered with Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) amounting to Rs. 3,94,036/- in respect of interest income earned from co-operative banks. The return of income was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru. However, in terms of intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.

3,94,036/- was denied to the assessee.

3. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the order so passed by the CPC and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 3,94,036/- from the following co-operative banks:

i. Shamrao Vitthal Co-operative Bank Ltd., ii. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., iii. TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.

5. It was submitted that these banks are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and as the assessee being a registered co-operative society, interest income on deposit with these co- operative banks is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was submitted that these details were submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same have not been disputed. It was further submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the vario