Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Kolkata-12, Kolkata v. M/S. The Reserve Bank Employeesco-Operative Credit Societyltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOLKATA-12, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. THE RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEESCO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETYLTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 6[th] December, 2023 Appearance:Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv....for the respondent. 1.Heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counselfor the appellant/Income Tax Department and Mr. SiddharthaDas, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learnedadvocate for the respondent/assessee.2.This appeal has been admitted by an order dated 18[th] July,2019 on the following substantial question of law:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the interest income earned by the assessee iseligible for deduction under Section 80P and in particular Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 and whether the tribunal committed an errorin law in not appreciating the law in subject ?” 3.The CIT(Appeal) allowed the appeal of the assessee holdingthat the interest earned by the assessee such as the one athand, namely a Credit Co-operative Sale Society thatcarries on business of providing credit facilities to itsmembers and earned interest by deposits made innationalised banks, would be eligible for deduction underSection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Theappellant herein i.e., Income Tax Department filed anappeal being ITA No.2253/Kol/2016 (assessment year 2013-14). 4.In paragraph 10 of the impugned order the Tribunal heldthat the order of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid issue has tobe upheld and, consequently, the Ground No.1 raised by therevenue is accordingly dismissed. 5.Aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, the revenue has filed the present appeal whichhas been admitted on the above quoted substantial questionof law. 6.We find that the substantial question of law as raised inthis appeal is squarely covered by a recent judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co- Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs.Assessing Officer reported in (2023) 154 taxmann.com 305(SC). Both the learned counsel for the parties also jointlyagree that the substantial question of law, as abovequoted, is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court and, in view thereof, the substantialquestion of law needs to be answered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue and the appeal needs to bedismissed. 7.In view of the aforesaid, the substantial question of law,as framed above, is answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue in terms of the law laid down in thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KeralaState Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development BankLtd.(supra).8.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/85/2019) is dismissed. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)