Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Nipani V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani., Nipani

CO 5/PAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4869 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 56; 263; 80P; 143(2); 2(19)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ,पणजीमɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI (Through virtual Court- at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ĥ×या¢ेपसं./CO.No.05/PAN/2018 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Arising out of ITA No.377/PAN/2017) Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, A/p. Nipani, Chikodi, Taluka Belgavi PAN : AAAAS2281C ..... Ĥ×या¢ेपक/ Cross objector बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani .........Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shyam J Kamat, AR Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR 2 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present cross-objection filed by the assessee- society arises from the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.377/PAN/2017. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.377/PAN/2018 had been dismissed by the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.9.2019, for the reason, that the tax effect therein involved was below that prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing of appeals by the revenue before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has objected to the impugned order on the following grounds: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest/ dividends earned by the Respondent from deposits in Co-operative society/banks is taxable u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of holding that the same is allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i). 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest/ dividends earned by the respondent from deposits in Co-operative society/banks is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). 3. The respondent craves leave to add, to or modify the above ground of cross objection.” 3 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee which is a co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 22.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed deduction of its entire gross total income of Rs.81,51,105/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Observing, that as per Section 80P(4) r.w.s. 2(24)(viia) of the Act and Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the assessee co-operative society being a primary co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act, the Assessing Officer declined its claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y 2008-09, after relying on the order passed by the ITAT, Panaji in the assessee’s own case for A.Y 2008-09, had held, that the assessee was 4 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 entitled for claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However, it was noticed by the CIT(Appeals) that the Tribunal had after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in The Totgars Co-operative sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 272 (Kar), had set-side the matter to the file of the AO, with a direction, that the interest income earned by the assessee from institutions/bank deposits/mutual funds which were made for the purpose of maintaining Statutory Liquid Ratio (SLR) be worked out and allowed as a deduction. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the CIT (Appeals) concluded that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) only to the extent it had arisen from deposits/investments which were made for the purpose of maintaining SLR. It was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that interest/dividend earned by the assessee on its deposits/investments from co-operative banks and scheduled banks would otherwise be liable to tax u/s.56 of the Act i.e., after allowing cost of fund and proportionate administrate expenses incurred for earning such income u/s.57(3) of the Act. Also, it was observed by the 5 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 CIT(Appeals) that the interest/dividend income earned by the assessee on FDs/investments with the Co-operative banks and scheduled banks would not be eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. The assessee by preferring the present cross-objection has objected to the order of the CIT(Appeals) before us. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. Before us, the grievance of the assessee is two fold, viz. (i) that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in holding that the interest/dividend earned by the assessee society from its deposits with Co-operative societies/banks was taxable u/s.56 of the Act and thus, except for that earned on the deposits that were made for maintaining SLR would not be eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act; and (ii) that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in holding that the interest/dividend earned by the assessee society from its deposits with 6 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 Co-operative societies/banks would not be eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 6. We shall first advert to the assessee’s grievance that the lower authorities had erred in declining its claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act i.e, on the interest income that was earned on the surplus funds that were deposited with co-operative societies/banks. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the scope and gamut of which is the primary bone of contention before us, which reads as under : “80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in— (i).carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) to (iii)....................................................................................” (Emphasis by underlining supplied by us) 7 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, we find, that the same contemplates that the income of a co-operative society from its business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Our indulgence in the present appeal is confined to the limited aspect i.e, as to whether or not the interest income earned by the assessee-society by depositing its surplus funds with a bank can be brought within the meaning of “income from carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members”, and thus, would fall within the realm of the deduction contemplated in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act?. At this stage, we may herein observe, in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Cooperative Ltd. in ITA No.307/2014, dated 28.10.2014, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had after exhaustive deliberations held as under : “6. From the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the undisputed facts which emerges is, the sum of Rs.1,77,305/- represents the interest earned from short term deposits and from savings bank account. The assessee is a cooperative society providing credit facilities to its members. It is not carrying on any other business. The interest income earned by the assessee by providing credit facilities to its members is deposited in the banks for a short duration which has earned interest. Therefore, whether this interest is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members, is the question. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the relevant provision of law i.e. section 80P(2)(a)(i): 8 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 “Deduction in respect of income of cooperative societies: 80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub- section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in— (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) xxx (vi) xxx (vii) xxx the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities.” 7. The word ‘attributable used in the said section is of great importance. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word ‘attributable’ as supposed to derive from its use in various other provisions of the statute in the case of CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT- II reported in ITR Vol.113 (1978) Page 842 at Page 93 as under: As regards the aspect emerging from the expression "attributable to" occurring in the phrase "profits and gains attributable to the business of" the specified industry (here generation and distribution of electricity) on which the learned Solicitor General relied, it will be pertinent to observe that the Legislature has deliberately used the expression "attributable to" and not the expression "derived from". It cannot be disputed that the expression "attributable to" is certainly wider in import than the expression "derived from". Had the expression "derived from" been used it could have with some force been contended that a balancing charge arising from the sale of old machinery and buildings cannot be regarded as profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In this connection it may be pointed out 9 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 that whenever the Legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner suggested by the learned Solicitor General it has used the expression "derived from", as for instance in s. 80J. In our view since the expression of wider import, namely, "attributable to” has been used, the Legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. 8. Therefore, the word “attributable to” is certainly wider in import than the expression “derived from”. Whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning, they have used the expression “derived from”. The expression “attributable to” being of wider import, the said expression is used by the legislature whenever they intended to gather receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business. A cooperative society which is carrying on the business providing credit facilities to its members, earns profit and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate business for earning such interest income. The income so derived is the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under section 80P of the Act. 9. In this context when we look at the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd, on which reliance is placed, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the assessee co-operative society, apart from providing credit facilities to the members, was also in the business of marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. The sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members was retained in many cases. The said retained amount which was payable to its members from whom produce was bought, was invested in a short-term deposit/security. Such an amount which was retained by the assessee-society was a liability and it was shown in the balance sheet on the liability side. Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court held the assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income indicated above under section 56 of the Act. 10 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 Further they made it clear that they are confining the said judgment to the facts of that case. Therefore, it is clear, Supreme Court was not laying down any law. 10. In the instant case, the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any members. It was not the liability. It was not shown as liability in their account. In fact this amount which is in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore, they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore, it is liable to be deducted in terms of section 80P(1) of the Act. In factsimilar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence, we pass the following order: Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their own cost.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble High Court, we are of a considered view, that as the surplus funds parked by the assessee society as short-term deposits with a bank are inextricably interlinked or, in fact interwoven, with its business of providing credit facilities to its members, therefore, the same as claimed by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid 11 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 observations direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income that was earned by the assessee society on its surplus funds that were deposited as short term deposits with bank. Thus, the Cross- objection No.1 raised by the assessee before us is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 7. As regards the disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction of the interest/dividend income that was earned from its deposits/investments with a co-operative Bank u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the backdrop of the settled position of law. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the interest/dividend income was earned by the assessee society on its deposits/investments with a co- operative bank, therefore, the same was duly eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. In order to fortify his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s 12 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 Solitaire CHS Ltd Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-26, ITA No.3155/Mum/2019 dated 29.11.2019. 8. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in hand, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the lower authorities. In our considered view, as a Co-operative bank falls within the realm of the definition of a “Co-operative Society” as contemplated in Section 2(19) of the Act, therefore, the view taken by the lower authorities that the interest/dividend income received by the assessee from Co-operative societies/banks would not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be sustained. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-26, ITA No.3155/Mum/2019, dated 29.11.2019 (wherein one of us, i.e, the JM was a party), had after exhaustive deliberations held as under: “6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought, for adjudicating, as to whether the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from the investments/deposits made with the co-operative banks is in order, or not. In our considered view, the issue involved in the present appeal revolves around the adjudication of the scope and gamut of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P as had been made available 13 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 on the statute, vide the Finance Act 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007. On a perusal of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, we find, that he was of the view that pursuant to insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P, the assessee would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest income that was earned on the amounts which were parked as investments/deposits with co-operative banks, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Observing, that the co- operative banks from where the assessee was in receipt of interest income were not co-operative societies, the Pr. CIT was of the view that the interest income earned on such investments/deposits would not be eligible for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. After necessary deliberations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT. Before proceeding any further, we may herein reproduce the relevant extract of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d), as the same would have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issue before us. “80P(2)(d) (1). Where in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2). The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :- (a)............................................................................................ (b)............................................................................................ (c)............................................................................................ (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income;” On a perusal of Sec. 80P(2)(d), it can safely be gathered that interest income derived by an assessee co-operative society from its investments held with any other co-operative society shall be deducted in computing its total income. We may herein observe, that what is relevant for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) is that the interest income should have been derived from the investments made by the assessee co-operative society with any other co-operative society. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT, that with the insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P, vide the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007, the provisions of Sec. 80P would no more be applicable in relation to any co- operative bank, other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary 14 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. However, at the same time, we are unable to subscribe to his view that the aforesaid amendment would jeopardise the claim of deduction of a co-operative society under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of its interest income on investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. In our considered view, as long as it is proved that the interest income is being derived by a co-operative society from its investments made with any other co-operative society, the claim of deduction under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d) would be duly available. We find that the term „cooperative society‟ had been defined under Sec. 2(19) of the Act, as under:- “(19) “Co-operative society” means a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any state for the registration of co-operative societies;” We are of the considered view, that though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co- operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. We shall now advert to the judicial pronouncements that have been relied upon by the ld. A.R. We find that the issue that a co-operative society would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income derived from its investments held with a co-operative bank is covered in favour of the assessee in the following cases: (i) Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum) (ii) M/s C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) MarvwanjeeCama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO- Range-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). KaliandasUdyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a 15 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same being distinguishable on facts had wrongly been relied upon by him. The adjudication by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case was in context of Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i), and not on the entitlement of a co-operative society towards deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income on the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). At the same time, we find, that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had observed, that the interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), wherein it was observed that the interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 9. Be that as it may, in our considered view, as the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and therein concluded that the assessee would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for dislodging the same. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view taken by the A.O at the time of framing of 16 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 the assessment was clearly supported by the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum). Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we „set aside‟ his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), date 14.09.2016. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Backed by our aforesaid observations, we not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities, therein vacate the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on the interest/dividend income that was received on its deposits/investments with a co-operative bank. The Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 05 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- JAMLAPPA D BATTULL RAVISH SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 05 th April, 2022 *SB 17 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Panaji-1 4. The Pr. CIT, Panaji 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, पणजी / DR, ITAT, Panaji. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur. 18 Shree Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs. ITO CO No.05 /PAN/2018 Date 1 Draft dictated on 23.03.2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 24.03.2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order