SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI V. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29, MUMBAI

ITA 1074/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3986 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RUTURAJ H GUJAR
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 80P; 143(2); 64; 48; 13; 22; 2(19); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN , AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1074 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT SHOP NO. 9, B WING, SHIV SAGAR COMPLEX TEMBHIPADA ROAD, ASHOK KEDARE CHOWK, BHANDUP WEST, MUMBAI - 400 078 / VS. P CIT 29 C/10, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 400 051 ./ ./ PAN NO. AA AAM 2162 L ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHR I RUTURAJ H. GUJAR AR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15 .10 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2019 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX - 29 IN SHORT 2 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT REFERRED AS LD. P CIT , MUMBAI, DATED 10.01.19 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR (IN SHORT A Y ) 2014 - 15 . 2 . T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE C ASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2014 - 15 ON 26.11.14 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SE RVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 3. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, PCIT NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS BANKS INCLUDING COOPERATIVE BANKS AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 16,49,411 ON BANK DEPOSITS AND OTHER INCOME OF RS. 13,883/ - . ACCORDING TO PCIT, THE ABOVE INCOME WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A), SIMILARLY 80P(2)(B), 80P(2)(D) AND 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT . THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY 3 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT THE ASSES SING OFFICER TOWARDS THIS INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HE OPINED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT , IF THERE IS ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST DERIVED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENT WITH ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION , H OWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM CO - OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF INCOME FROM A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. ACCORDING TO PCIT, THE ABOVE F ACTS MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT AO HAD NOT CARED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY AND TO VERIFY THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME AND HE OBSERVED THAT IT APPEARS TO BE PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT AND WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS. 4. IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE FILED DETAIL EXPLANATION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELO W FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: - 4 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT 1. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WE HAVE REQUESTED FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WHILE OUR LETTER DATED 17 TH OCTOBER, 2015. 2. THEIR AFTER IN RESPONSE 3. TO NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 8 TH JUNE, 2016 WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE REPLY IN DETAILS VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 23/06/2018 ALONG WITH 17 SUPPORTING ENCLOSURES THE COPY OF SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH FOR YOUR INFORMATION ON RECORD. 4. IN THE LETTER DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2016 IN POINT NO. 12 AND POINT NO. 13 WE HAVE SHOWN THE RE LEVANT DETAILS OF OTHER INCOME AND BRIEF NOTE - THERE ON IN THE SAID LETTER POINT NO. 13 WE HAVE EXPLAINED IN DETAILS OF COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM OF MSEB AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE PATPEDHI FOR THE EARNING THE SAID COMMISSION INCOME WHICH IS SELF EX PLANATORY. 5. THEIR AFTER ON THE BASIS OF I. T.S. STATEMENT DATED 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2016 WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EXPLANATION AS REGARDS CASH DEPOSITS MORE THAN RS. 10,00,000/ - CASH TRANSACTION MORE THAN RS. 1,00,000/ - TERM DEPOSITS MORE THAN RS. 2,00,000/ - AND DETAILS AS PER 2 6 AS THROUGH OUR LETTER DATED 23 R D NOVEMBER, 2016 (COPY ENCLOSED). 5 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT 6. THEIR AFTER IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. WE HAVE GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE POINT RAISED IN THE NOTICE. THROUGH OUR LETTER DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SUBMIT ON 29 F ' NOVE MBER, 2016 (COPY ENCLOSED). IN WHICH WE HAVE EXPLAINED IN DETAILS AND SUBMITTED OUR DETAILS REPLY AND EXPLAIN THE POINT COVERED IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT WE HAVE FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AS REQUIRED AND AS CALLE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. 8. THEIR AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER WHICH PRE SUPPOSE THAT THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED AND PLACE ON RECORD WERE DULY CONSIDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ORDER. IN VI EW OF THE SAID OBSERVATION MADE BY YOURSELF IN NOTICE U/S. 263(3) IS INCORRECT. 9. EVEN THOUGH WE OBJECT FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 263 UNDER THE INSTRUCTION FROM ABOVE SAID CLIENT WE FURNISH THE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF POINT RAISED IN THE NOTICE U/S. 263 DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. A. AS REGARDS INTEREST INCOME RS. 1649411/ - 6 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT HERE WE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY (PATPEDHI) CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS ONLY. THE FACT WAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE B ODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. B. THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF PATPEDHI IS TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS IN THE FORM OF RECURRING, SAVING A/C AND TERM DEPOSITS AND AFTER RETAINING 10 TO 30% OF SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZES FOR PROV IDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO MEMBERS ONLY. BY WAY OF TERM LOAN FOR VEHICLES, HOUSING AND BUSINESS AND PERSONAL PURPOSE WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF BY LAWS AND POLICIES DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME. C. FURTHER AS REQUIRED AND IN ORDER TO SAFEGU ARD THE FUNDS OF THE MEMBER DEPOSITORS, A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ALLOWED TO DISBURSE ONLY 70% OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY WAY OF DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS. ANY CHANGE IN THIS RATIO HAS AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON CATEGORIZATION, RATING AS WELL AS SURVIVAL OF SOCIETY AND IT MAY ALSO LEAD TO SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. D. FURTHER THIS AMOUNT OF RETAINED MONEY 30% OF DEPOSITS CANNOT BE KEPT IDLE AND THE SAME IS DEPOSITED WITH RECOGNIZED BANKS. AS SUCH THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THESE BANKS BY WAY OF KEEPING DEPOSITS WITH THEM, 7 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. FURTHER WE SUBMIT THAT THE DEPOSIT IS MADE OUT OF THE PORTION OF FUNDS WHICH CANNOT BE LENT TO MEMBERS AS PER G.R.S. PASSED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME EARNED UNDER COMPE LLING SITUATION OR BY FOLLOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, CANNOT BE EQUATED TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. E. FURTHER WE SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSES WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS AN D REGULATIONS OF THE MAHARASHTRA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960, AND THE CIRCULARS ISSUED THERE UNDER FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ASSESSES CANNOT APPLY THE ENTIRE SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED AS DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS FOR LENDING. F. IT HAS TO KEEP AROUND 20 TO 30% OF THE DEPOSITS AS A FORM OF SECURITY IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITS WITH OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON WHICH IT FETCHES RETURNS BY WAY OF INTEREST. THESE DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE ISSUED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED MANDATORY. HENCE, IT APPEARS THAT INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH DEPOSITS PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS INCOME. 8 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT AS POINTED OUT IN POINT NO. 6 OF THE NOTICE YOURSELF AS RAISED THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HERE WE POINT OUT THAT THE PATPEDHI IS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS ONLY THERE IS LIST OF MEMBERS WITH AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IS MAINTAINED REGULARLY BY THE PATPE D HI FOR THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT FACILITI ES HAS BEEN GIVEN TO MEMBERS ONLY HERE ALSO LIST OF MEMBERS WITH AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE IS MAINTAIN AND AVAILABLE WITH THE SOCIETY. HERE WE AGAIN POINT OUT THAT THE PATPEDHI'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REGULARLY AUDITED BY THE AUDITORS APPOINTED BY THE PATPEDHI AND OR AS PER DIRECTION FROM THE DDR MUMBAI. FURTHER AS PER AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITORS HAS TO CERTIFY AND VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS THE TOTAL OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS AND ALL THE LONENESS ACCOUNT. WHAT SHOULD BE TALLY WITH TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT OUTSTANDI NG? THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THE LONENESS IS VERIFICABLE. 10. AS PER POINT NO.7, YOURSELF RELIED ON DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGAR CASE. HERE WE SUBMIT THAT THE FACT IN THE CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE, MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE IN OUR CASE FOR WHICH WE SUBMIT OUR REASONING. 11. RECENTLY, THE CBDT HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT CASE OF CIT V/S. NAWANSHAHAR CENTRAL CO - OP. B ANK LTD. (2007) 160 TAXMAN 48 (SC), IN CIRCULAR NO. 18/2015, DAT ED 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY A BANKING CONCERN ARE PART OF THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH INVESTMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FALLING UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN THIS CIRCULAR THAT THOUGH THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/BANKS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. SOP (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, THE PRINCIPLE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO A LL BANKS/COMMERCIAL BANKS, TO WHICH BANKING REGULAR ACT, 1949 APPLIES. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH INVESTMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FALLING UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN THIS CIRCULAR THAT THOUGH THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/BANKS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, THE PRINCIPLE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL BANKS/COMMERCIAL BANKS, TO WHICH BANKING REGULATION AC T, 1949 APPLIES. THEREFORE, HON'BLE CBDT, VIDE THIS CIRCULAR HAS DIRECTED THAT NO APPEALS MAY HENCEFORTH BE FILED ON THIS GROUND BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPAR T MENT AND 10 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT APPEALS ALREADY FILED, IF ANY, ON THIS GROUND BEFORE COURTS/TRIBUNALS MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NO T PRESSED UPON (COPY ENCLOSED) WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND HENCE BINDING ON YOURSELF. 12. IN THE CASE DECIDED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT RELIED ON BY YOURSELF, THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN SHORT TERM DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES WAS NOT OUT OF INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM MEMBERS BUT OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF FARMER MEMBERS MARKETED BY THE SOCIETY. IN VIEW OF THE SAID, WE SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED ON BY YOURSELF IS DISTINGUISHABLE. WE FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE SOCIETY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITY OF COLLECTING THE INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS AND LENDING THE SAME TO MEMBERS AND INVESTING THE FUNDS IN BANKS DEPOSITS AND MUTUAL FUNDS FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME, ETC. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS, THEREFORE, CONSI DERED ONLY THE LATER PART OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) I.E. INCOME OF A CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EARLIER PART OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) I.E. INCOME OF A CO - OPER ATIVE SOCIETY AS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 13. AS REGARDS MSEB COMMISSION INCOME RS. 13.883/ - 11 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT HERE WE SUBMIT THAT THE PATPEDHI IS APPOINTED AS MSEB BILL COLLECTION CENTER AND IS RECEIVING COMMISSION INCOME AS FIXED BY T HE MSEB BOARD ON THE BASIS OF NUMBERS OF BILLS AND AMOUNT COLLECTED. ON THE COMMISSION INCOME, MSEB DEDUCTING TDS @ 10%. THE PATPEDHI HAS APPOINTED STAFF FOR THIS PURPOSE AND HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR THE SAID RELEVANT DETAILS OF GROSS COMMISSION RECEIV ED AND EXPENSES INCURRED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH OUR LETTER DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2016. POINT NO. 12 OF THE LETTER WHICH IS ON THE RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE NET INCOME OF RS. 13.883/ - IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2 )(C) OF THE ACT WITHIN LIMIT OF RS. 50,0007 - WHICH IS NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY HOWEVER, WHICH IS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF U/S. 80P(2)(C)(I). 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. PCIT REJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME OUT OF THE BANK DEPOSITS WITH COOPERATIVE BANKS AND OTHER BANKS. 6. WITH REGARD TO OTHER INCOME OF RS. 13,883/ - , ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME IS 12 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO FRAME THE ASSES SMENT DE NOVO. 7 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. PC IT, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUND MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW: 1) THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 29 (C IT) ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY INVOKING POWERS UNDER S 263, WHEN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 2) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263, BY RELYING O N IRRELEVANT MATERIAL 85 ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES & CONJECTURES. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IS DEVOID OF ANY MERITS & BAD IN LAW. 3) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING FOR DE - NOVO ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REBUTTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY TO SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. SOP (2) (A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS TO HOW THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE, WHEN IT IS 13 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A 'CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY' 85 NOT 'CO OPERATIVE CREDIT BANK'. 4) THE LD CIT HAS FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO FAILED TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION OF CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING DETAILS FILED ALONG WITH REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263, WHICH ALSO CONSISTED DETAILS FILED DURING THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. 5) THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 6) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8 . BEFORE US, LD. A R BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE FINDINGS OF PCIT AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE INFORMATION RELATING TO INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS PER THE QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE NO. 50 TO 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECORD AIR REPORT THAT ALL THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN COOPERATIVE BANKS AND FURTHER HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO ON CASH TRANSACTIONS 14 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT OVER 1 LAKHS ON SINGLE DAY AS WELL AS TERM DEPOSITS OF MORE THAN 2 LAKHS WITH BANKS. 9. WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS GIVEN FINAL OPPORTUNITY BY WAY OF NOTICE DATED 24.11.16 AND ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAIL NOTE BEFORE THE AO, WHICH IS PLACED IN PAGE NO. 59 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO IN PAGE NO. 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH, IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT AO HAS DEALT WIT H THESE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND APPLIED HIS MIND. 10. FURTHER, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SRI GOWRI CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY VRS. PCIT (ITA NO. 26/VIZ/2018) AND KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO - OPER ATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VRS. ITO (ITA NO. 6547/MUM/17). 11 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FACT THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN COOPERATIVE BANKS AND EARNED INTEREST AND NOT WITH COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE FINDINGS OF PR.CIT IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER AND HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS A ND NOT 15 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT APPLIED HIS MIND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND OR APPLIED PROVISION OF LAW INCORRECTLY, THEREFORE PR. CIT CAN INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS: - I) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VRS. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC). II) ARUN S. TRIPATHI VRS. PCIT 88 TAXMAN.COM 552 (MUM) III) VIRBHADRA SINGH (HUF) VRS. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 530 (HP) 12. AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE CASES, WHEN NO ENQUIRY WA S CONDUCTED, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT GET ATTRACTED. 1 3 . CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE NOTICE FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN COOPERATIVE BANKS AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME. THIS FACT WAS VERIFIED BY THE AO BY ISSUING VARIOUS SHOW 16 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT CAUSE NOTICES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN D ETAIL IN HIS ORDER. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6547/MUM/2017, CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ISSUE WHETHER THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM COOPERATIVE BANKS IS ALLOWABLE U/S 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WHICH IS RE PRODUCED BELOW: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT OUR INDULGENCE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D), IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS IS IN ORDER OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HINGES AROUND THE ADJUDICATION OF TH E SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P, AS HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE VIDE THE FINANCE ACT 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT PURSUANT TO INSERTION OF SUB - SEC TION (4) OF SEC. 80P, THE 17 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ASSESSEE WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE AMOUNTS PARKED AS INVESTMENTS WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMA RY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK WITH WHICH THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PARKED AS INVESTMENTS, WERE NEITHER PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY NOR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDE R CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY HEREIN REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID 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) 18 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT (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 A CCORDANCE 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; THUS, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SEC. 80P(2)(D) IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT INCOME BY W AY OF INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE, THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN 19 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DERIVED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE THOUGH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES 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 P RIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUT HOWEVER, ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VIEW THAT THE SAME SHALL ALSO JEOPARDISE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON T HEIR INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS LONG AS IT IS PROVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS BEING DERIVED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVES TMENTS 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 MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE TERM CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAD BEEN DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2(19) OF TH E ACT, AS UNDER: - (19) CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEANS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 20 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES; WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, THAT THOUGH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK PURSUANT TO THE INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT, BUT HOWEVER, AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK CONTINUES TO BE A CO - O PERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING ENFORCED IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCI ETY 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 HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) FOR THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 21 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT (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. ITO21(3)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1343/MUM/2017, DATED 31.03.2017 (III) MARVWANJEE CAM A PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITORANGE - 20(2)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6139/MUM/2014, DATED 27.09.2017. 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 S OCIETY (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (GUJ), HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE E LIGIBLE 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, AS HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R, ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT, THAT THE PURPOSE BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WAS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COOPERATIVE BANKS WHICH ARE FUNCTIONING AT PAR WITH OTHER BANKS WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF 22 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(4) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283(S.C) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, HAD WRONGLY BEEN RELIED UPON BY HIM. THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HONBLE APEX CO URT 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 PARKED WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE R ELIANCE PLACE BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT F BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY VS. ITO - 15(3)(4) (ITA NO. 5819/MUM/2014, DATED 17.03.2017 IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE BANK TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IT WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CARRYING OUT A CONJOINT READING OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) R.W. SEC. 80P(4) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE BEFORE THEM. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 23 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, WOULD BE OF NO ASSISTANCE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. STILL FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SMC BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAI DATTA CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (ITA NO. 2379/MUM/2015, DATED 15.01.2016, WOULD ALSO NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE, FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SAID MATTER THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THAT AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT O F KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. TOTAGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 395 ITR 611 (KARN), THE HIGH COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). WE HOWEVER 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 COURTS, THEN A VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAKEN AGAINST HIM. THUS, TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE 24 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT CASE OF P R. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE 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 EA RNED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 9. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGRE EMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D), IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND CONCLUDE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.27,48,553/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE INVESTMENTS HELD WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIO N WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED AND PR. CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO TREAT THE ASSESSMENT 25 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS IS NOT APPROPRIATE AS THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN CO - OPERATIVE BANKS ARE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND AO HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND APPLIED HIS MIND. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSE D BY PCIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 1 5 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND NOV 20 19 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 22 .11 .201 9 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 26 I.T.A. NO. 1074 /MUM/201 9 SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI