ITO,Ward-56(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. SBI Staff Association Co-Operative Society Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1165/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4880 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILOY BARAN SOM JCIT SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: B K GHOSH; PIJUSH DEY
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUSDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1164 - 1165 / KOL / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008-09 & 2009-10 ITO WARD-56(4)3, GOVT. PLACE (W), KOLKATA-700 001 V/S . SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 11, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700 069 [ PAN NO.AADTS 2489 ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI B.K.GHOSH, FCA & SHRI PIJUSH DEY, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI NILOY BARAN SOM, JCIT, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 03-02-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-03-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- BOTH APPEAL BY REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT O RDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 08.06.2012 AND 07.06.2012. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ACIT, CI RCLE-56 AND ITO WARD- 56(4), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE THEIR ORDERS DATED 31.12.2010 AN D 28.11.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BOTH APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND PASS A CONSO LIDATE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 2 FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 1164/KOL/2012 FOR AY 2008- 09. 3. REVENUE HAS RAISED REVISED GROUNDS WHICH ARE REP RODUCED BELOW:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA, ERRED IN ALLOWING HE INTEREST INCOM E OF RS.1,14,93,068/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A) (I) OF THE IT ACT. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RECE NT JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S BANGALORE CLUB VS COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 124 & 125 OF 2007 AND 272 TO 278 OF 2013 DATED 14.01.2013, WHEREIN IT IS HELD TH AT INTEREST FROM FDS PLACED BY CLUB WITH BANKS WHO ARE ITS CORPORATE MEMBERS IS NOT TAX-EXEMPT ON GROUNDS OF DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY AS THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH EXEMPTION NOT SATISFIED . 4. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY AND ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF GRANTING LOANS FOR CREDIT FACI LITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR BESIDES INCOME FROM ITS M EMBERS BY WAY OF INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE TO THEM, HAS EA RNED INCOME FROM INVESTMENT AND TERM DEPOSITS OUT OF ITS SURPLUS FUN DS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THE PROVISION OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME D ERIVED FROM CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING FOR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBER IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE ASSESSEE HAS GENERATED THE INCOME FROM INVESTMENT MADE IN DIFFER ENT SECURITIES AND TERM DEPOSITS OUT OF ITS SURPLUS FUNDS. THEREFORE, INCOM E IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S.56 OF THE ACT. ON QUESTION PUT TO ASSESSEE BY AO, ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH CLAIMING THAT INT EREST INCOME EARNED FROM TRADING IN SECURITIES AND TERM DEPOSIT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE THIS INCOME IS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION THEN THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THIS INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, AO HAS DIS REGARDED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE RELYING IN THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TATGARS COOPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY LTD. 188 TAXMANN 282 (SC) AND FURTHER RELIED IN THE CASE OF AGAR APEX MARKETING SOCIETY V. CIT 201 ITR 332 (SC). THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF EXPENS E AGAINST THE INTEREST ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 3 INCOME DOES NOT ARISE AS THIS INVESTMENT WERE MADE OUT THE SURPLUS FUND AND ALL EXPENSES OF ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HA S BEEN DULY RECOGNIZED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UND ER:- 3.2. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE DULY CONSIDERED. TH E AO, THOUGH CITED THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHSANA DISTRICT CO-OPT. BANK LTD. (251 ITR 572) AN D G. STATE CO-OPT. BANK LTD., BUT DID MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT AND ESTABLISH THAT THE NON-INVESTMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURS E OF BUSINESS UTILIZING THE CIRCULATING CAP WHEREAS, I FIND THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED AS DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR I N IDENTICAL ISSUES FOR A.Y 2004-05, BY THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF THE H ON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK, REP ORTED IN 251 ITR (SC). FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGEMENT, MANY OTHER JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN PASSED SUBSEQUENTLY HOLDING THAT INCOME A RRIVED OUT OF NON-SLR FUND ALSO SHALL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION 80P(2 )(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTION TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT INCOME ARISING OUT NON COMP ULSORY INVESTMENT ALSO WOULD QUALIFY EXEMPTION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES :- I) PASEHIM BANGA GRAMIIN BANK, KOLKATA, AY 2004-05, ITA NO. 1094/KOL/2007 DATED 07/09/2007 II) NADIA GRAMIN BANK, AY 2004-05, ITA NO. 47/KOL/2 008, DATED 26/02/2008. III) KALNA TOWN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ITA NOS. 2395, 2390- 2397/KOL/2007 DATED 31/01/2008 THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A/R IS FOUND CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE SUCH, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM NON-CO MPLUSORY INVESTMENT WOULD ALSO QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED . THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.1,14,93,068/-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 4 FILED BEFORE ME A COPY OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF S.E.C. & E. CO. RAILWAYS EMPLOYEES CO-OPER ATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 11693/KOL/2012 ORDER DATED 30.10.2014. IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE IDENTICAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER INTEREST INCOME HAD TO BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID DE CISION ACCEPTED LOANS AND DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS AND UTILIZED THE SAME TOW ARDS PROVIDING LOANS AND CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. HOWEVER EXCESS FU NDS WERE UTILIZED IN MAKING DEPOSITS IN BANKS AND INVESTMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL REL YING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIE TY IN GA NO. 1838 OF 2010 DATED 22.07.2010 CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INTER EST INCOME HAS TO BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF BANKING AND IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO DIST INGUISHED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO (SUPRA). THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- 7.1 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY CATENA OF DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THESE DECISIONS ARE ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER FOR A.YR. 2005-06. IN THIS ORDER THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE RE LEVANT ORDERS AND HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY GAINFULLY REPRODUCE THE OPERATIVE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH IS AS UNDER:- WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORD ER OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. IT APPEARS THAT THE POINT INVOLVE D IS WHETHER INTEREST EARNED OUT OF THE INVESTMENT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE CAN BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR FROM OTHER SOURCES IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE IT ACT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1998- 99 TO 2002-2003 AS ALSO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 5-96 AND 1996-97. THEN AGAIN IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 A SIMILAR POINT AROSE. THE LEARNED TRIB UNAL IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-20 03 BY ORDER ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 5 DATED 10.11.2006 IN ITA NOS 840 TO 844/KOL/2006 AND AGAIN BY ORDER DATED 29.12.2006 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN TH OSE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS SHORT TERM AN D FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS WERE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS INCOME WAS NOT BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BUT WAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT INCOME FROM INVESTMENT IN BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IS THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND IT IS ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80P(2)(A)(I). THE TRIBUNAL HAS OVERRULED THE DECISI ONS RENDERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1995-96 AND 1996-97 ON THE SAME ISSUE IN RELATION TO SUBSEQ UENT YEARS. IT WAS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE AFFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) THAT THERE IS N O CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0P(2)(A)(I) ON INTEREST ON INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,07,645/ - IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS FOLLOWED BY CIT(A) THERE IS NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THAT WHEN THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLO WED THE EARLIER UNCHALLENGED DECISION NO QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVE D IN THIS MATTER. NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SHOW SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AND 2003-04 HAVE BEEN CHAL LENGED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THIS COURT. IT IS SUBMITTED BY MR. BOWMICK THAT THERE HAS BEEN CHALLENGE OF THE DECISION IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-9 6, 1996-97 AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT WE THINK THAT CHALLENGE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW BECOME REDUNDANT AS THE EAR LIER VIEW TAKEN IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN REVERS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISION. HENCE THE PEND ENCY OF THAT EARLIER MATTER IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THIS MATTER. HAD THERE BEEN A CHALLENGE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELA TION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AND ALSO 2003-0 4 TO 2004- 05 THE MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. THE REVENU E DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP WHATSOEVER. THEREFORE, WE PRESUME THE REVENUE HA ACCEPTED THE SUBSEQUENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TD HE SAME NOW HOLD THE FIELD RIGHT NOW. ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 6 7.2 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE I S SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IN THIS REGARD WE WOU LD LIKE TO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EXCEL INDUSTRIES 358 ITR 295 WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HAS BEEN REITERATED. HENCE WHEN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT NO CONVINCING REASON HAS BEEN POINTED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, ANY DEVIATION IS NOT PERMITTED. 7.3 NOW WE COME TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND TH AT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID DECISION IN PARA 11 HAS ITSELF ME NTIONED THAT WE ARE CONFINING THE JUDGMENT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS TO PR OVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBER AND TO MARKET THEIR AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. IN MANY CASES ASSESSEE RETAINED SALE PROCEEDS OF MEMBERS WH OSE PRODUCE WAS MARKETED BY IT AND SINCE FUNDS CREATED BY SUCH RETENTION WERE NOT REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, IT INVE STED SAME IN SPECIFIED SECURITIES AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT INTEREST EARNE D WOULD COME IN CATEGORY OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TAXABLE U/S. 56 OF THE ACT AND WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I). FROM THE ABOVE IT IS AMPLY EVIDENT IN THE PRESENT C ASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETAINED ANY AMOUNT DUE TO ITS MEMBERS AND INSTEAD OF PAYING THE SAME HAD INVESTED THE SAME AND EARNED INTEREST. THUS THIS CASE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE. 7.4 AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR RAJYA SAHKARI BHOOMI BIKASH CO-OP. BANK LTD. (SUPRA) THE SAME IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST EARNED ON PR OVIDENT FUND AND RENTAL INCOME AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BAKING BUSINESS AN D THIS QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80PP(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 7.5 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION A ND PRECEDENT WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A ) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTE NCY AS CONVEYED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT MANDATES THAT THE REVENUE DOES N OT TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. ITA NO.1164-65/KOL/2012 A.Y.S 2008-09 & 20 09-10 ITO WD-56(4) KOL. V. SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. PAGE 7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION AND TAKIN G DOWN THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE A CT IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME. HENCE, THIS EFFECTIVE GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. COMING TO NEXT APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1165/KOL/2012 FOR A.Y. 09-10 7. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGREED WHATEVER VIEW TAKEN IN ITA NO. 1164/KOL/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, MAY BE TAKEN IN THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1165/KOL/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ALSO. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE STAND DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 18/ 03/2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP '#$- 18 / 03 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-SBI STAFF ASSOCIATION CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., 11, ABDUL HAMID ST. KOL-69 2. / REVENUE-ITO, WARD-56(4), 3 GOVT. PLACE (W), KOLK ATA-700 001 3. #,#-. / / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. /- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 234 55-., -.!, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 489 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / # -.!,