M/S M.P. State Cooperative Housing Federation Society, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 1051/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5680 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .../ I.T.A. NO. 1055/IND/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) BHOPAL :: / APPELLANT VS M/S M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION SOCIETY BHOPAL PAN AAAAM1593M : / RESPONDENT .../ I.T.A. NO. 1051/IND/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION SOCIETY BHOPAL PAN AAAAM1593M :: / APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) BHOPAL :: / RESPONDENT M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 2 ! ' # $ / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED - DR %& ' # $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE ' ( ' &) DATE OF HEARING 21. 3 .2017 *+,- ' &) DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 7 . 3 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT (A)] DAT ED 29.7.2016. THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS AGAIN ST APPEAL DECIDED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.1.2 016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS 'THE ACT) BY THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 1. IN ITA NO. 1055/IND/2016 GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,15,29,031/- RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT INCOME NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES OF THE M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 3 SOCIETY ARE NOTN ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY IGNORI NG THE RULING OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTG ARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2010) WHEREI N WHILE INTERPRETING THE P[ROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED OUT OF INVESTED FUNDS CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. IN ITA NO. 1051/IND/2016 GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.47,339/- BEING DEPRECIATION ON LAND AND BUILDING . 2. EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS MAINTAINED, THE EXEMPTED INCOME WOULD INCREASE AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) WILL INCREASE THEREBY THERE WILL BE NO ADDITION IN THE T OTAL INCOME. 3. THE ADDITION OF RS. 47,339/- MAY PLEASE BE DELET ED BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A). 1.1 SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE M.P. COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 4.12.2013 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME AT RS.41,90,000/-. THE PRIME ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES IN THE FORM OF HOUSING LOANS TO I TS MEMBERS. DURING THE YEAR, UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN TOTAL INCOME M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 4 OF RS.41,90,000/- WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM HOUSIN G PROPERTY AT RS.28,39,437/- AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON OF RS.6,71,09,727/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N OF RS.6,57,59,166/- U/S 80P OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AM OUNTING TO RS.1,11,93,299/- FROM IDBI BANK, BANK OF BARODA, PN B BANK AND INTEREST OF RS.3,35,732/- FROM SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT TOTALING TO RS.1,15,29,031/- BY HOLDING THAT THIS INTEREST IS N OT COVERED BY SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 1.2 BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HELD THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUN AL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON DEPOSITS WITH BANK FDRS AND SAVING BANK A CCOUNTS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING CRE DIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND, THEREFORE, COVERED U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 5 DATED 16.5.2008 IN ITA NO. 41/IND/2007, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 1.3 AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. B EFORE US, THE LEARNED DR WHILE REFUTING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE L EARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FIXED DEPOSITS IS INCOME FROM COMMERCIALISED B ANKS WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, THEREFORE, DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST WHI CH THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SI NCE THE MATTER IS SUB-JUDICE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH HIS ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 1.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 6 ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS VERY MUCH JUSTIFIE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE MAINTAINED. 1.5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SO FA R AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD.(SUPRA) AS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE I S CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI, IN ITA NO. 3489/MUM/2010 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MALAD SAHKARI BANK LTD. MALAD, MUMBAI, HAD ANOCCASION TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREMECOURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) AND VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.9.2011 IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 10THFE BRUARY, 2010, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT 2UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE C IT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTERES T FROM INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUND WITH OTHER BANKS QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NO INCONSONANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. THE TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD V. ITO, M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 7 KARNATAKA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1622 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.7572 OF 2009) DECIDED ON 8.2.2010. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3), INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT TH E INCOME RECEIVED ON FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.13,43,28 0 FROM BANKS OTHER THAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIEDTHE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ISENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80P ON INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY IT FROM BANK S OTHER THAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SAT ISFIED AND IS IN APPEALBEFORE US. 3. WHILE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY O RDER OF THE COOPERATIVE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS ALSO AN UNREP ORTED JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. THE MAHANAGAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., DATED 28.7.201 1 IN ITA NO.123 OF 2010 , HE PLACES HIS RELIANCE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE TOTGARS COOPERA TIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD, 229 CTR 209(SC). WHEN IT WAS POINTED O UT TO HIM THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE M AHANAGAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE SAID JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COO PERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA), HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY EXC EPT TO REITERATE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAHANAGAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.(SUP RA) APPLIES EQUALLY IN THECASE OF THE MAHANAGAR COOPERATIVE BAN K LTD(SUPRA). 4. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 8 OF THE MAHANAGAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD (SUPRA) AS AL SO COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE;S OW N CASE (SUPRA). AS REGARDS RELIANCE PLACED BY LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE S ALE SOCIETY LTD(SUPRA), WE HAVE NOTED THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE SAID JUDGM ENT BY, INTER ALIA,OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ABOVE CON TENTION BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOC IETY LTD(SUPRA),THE APEX COURT IN PARA 11 OF ITS JUDGMEN T HAS HELD THAT THE DECISIONSRELATING TO THE COOPERATIVE BANKS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASES RELATING TO THE COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY. MOREOVER, THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAWANSHAHAR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK (SUPRA ) HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE COOPERATI VE BANKS WITH A VIEW TO EARN INTEREST CONSTITUTE BANKI NG BUSINESS. AS THE INCOME ARISING FROM INVESTMENTS AR E ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, DEDUCTIBL E U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE DECISION OF TH E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIE TY LTD (SUPRA) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAHANAGHAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATEBENCH IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 9 1.5.1 IN THE CASE OF TOTGAR'S COOPERATIVE SALE SO CIETY LTD (SUPRA), IT HAD SURPLUS FUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN SHORT-TERM DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AND IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIE S. ON SUCH INVESTMENTS, INTERESTS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND ALSO MARKETED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WHILE IN THE PR ESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INVEST THE SURPLUS FUNDS IN SHORT TERM DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AND IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AND AS SUCH NO INTEREST WAS EARNED ON THAT ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSE E EARNED INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS AND SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. AS SUCH, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE CLEARLY DIS TINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OBTAINED IN THE CASE OF TOTGA RS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LIMITED (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESE NT CASE. 1.5.2 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HA S ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 10 ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.2.2012 IN ITA NO. 315/IND/2011 HA S HELD AS UNDER :- 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOIN G THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES THROUG H THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS. TO FULFIL THIS AIM, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROVIDE LOAN AND ADVANCES TO THE INSTITUTION AND INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY AND OTHER SECURITIES IN ADDITION TO THE INTEREST RE CEIVED FROM THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM THE LO AN WAS ADVANCED, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING INCOME ON THE DEP OSITS WITH BANK, U.T.I. THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF T HE SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE INT ERVENING PERIOD OF MAKING THE ADVANCES AND RECOVERY OF THE L OANS. THE I.T.A.T., INDORE BENCH HAS DECIDED IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA THAT INTEREST ON IDBI BONDS AND FDRS QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-P. EVEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAR NATA COOP. BANK LIMITED (SUPRA), THE INTEREST ON INDIRA VIKAS PATRAS, KISAN VIKAS PATRAS, UTI AND IDBI BONDS WAS FOUND QUALIFIED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-P. THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP. BANK LIMITED VS. ITO, HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN PHRASEOL OGY OF SECTION 80-P(2)(A)(I), WHICH MAKES IT APPLICABLE ON LY TO INCOME DERIVED FROM WORKING OR CIRCULATING CAPITAL. EVEN I NTEREST INCOME FROM IVPS HAS ALSO HELD ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND ALSO I.T.A.T., WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0- P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, ON THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AND INTEREST FROM S. B. ACCOUNT, INT EREST ON DEPOSITS WITH U.T.I., INTEREST ON LOAN TO EMPLOYEES INTEREST ON ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES AND INTEREST ON ADVANCES MADE TO MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION. HOWEVER INTEREST RECEIVE D FROM M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 11 THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE REFUND SHALL NOT Q UALIFY FOR THE SAME AS IT CANNOT BE SAID AS ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 1.5.3 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL A S ALSO THE ORDER OF THE B BENCH OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. MALAD SAHAKARI BANK LTD., MALAD, MUMBAI (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AND INTEREST FROM SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL R EGARDING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 47,339/- ON LAND AND BUILDING, WE FIND THAT SUCH GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE I N HIS APPELLATE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DISMISS THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL DUE TO SMALL QUANTUM AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, T HIS FINDING WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE SUCH GROUND FOR ANOTHER YEARS, WHERE QUANTUM IS HIGH. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. M.P. STATE CO-OP.HOUSING ITA NOS.1055 & 1051/IND/2016 12 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIL AND ARE DISMISSED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2016. SD SD ( . . ) (C.M.GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 27 TH MARCH , 2017