Shree Kamaljadevi Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat. Maryadit, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 10(5), Pune

ITA 1386/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8636 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIR KISHORE PHADKE SL.NO.
• Keywords: Co-operative Credit Society; Set aside
• Section: 56; 143(3); 80P; 201; 13; 2(19)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM SL. NO. ITA NO. NAME OF THE APPELLANT NAME OF THE RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR 1 1431/PUN/2018 SAI PRERANA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA MARYADIT, 15 DINGORE, TAL JUNNAR, PUNE 412 409. PAN : AAIAS1216R I.T.O. WARD-10(5), PUNE. 2015- 16 2 1361/PUN/2018 SANT DNYANESHWAR NAGARI SAH PAT MARYADIT, C/O. PREMCHAND C. PATIL, M/S. P.C. PATIL & ASSOCIATES (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS), SWARAJ BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, SURVEY NO.148/1/2, PLOT NO.10, KALAMKAR PARK, NEAR JUPITAL HOSPITAL, BANER 411045. PAN : AACAS9748L I.T.O. WARD-10(5), PUNE 2015- 16 3 1386/PUN/2018 SHREE KAMALJADEVI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA MARYADIT, A/P PIMPALGAON (KHADKI) TAL-AMBEGAO, DIST. PUNE - 410503. PAN : AAFAS2768D I.T.O. WARD-10(5), PUNE. 2015- 16 4 1430/PUN/2018 MANDVI KINARA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, AZAD ROAD, OTUR, TAL JUNNAR. DIST. PUNE 412409. PAN : AABAM3574B I.T.O. WARD-10(5), PUNE 2015- 16 5 1517/PUN/2018 DNYANDIP GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSHTA MARYADIT RAJURI, A/P RAJPURI, TAL. JUNNAR, DIST. PUNE 412 411. PAN : AABAD3599H. I.T.O. WARD-10(5), PUNE. 2015- 16 6 1940/PUN/2018 SHRI ARIHANT GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSHTA MARYADIT A/P, RAJGURUNAGAR, TAL. KHED, DIST. PUNE- 410505. PAN : AACAS4852P ITO, WARD- 8(5), PUNE 2014- 15 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHIR KISHORE PHADKE SL.NO.1, 4. SHRI B.C. MALAKAR SL.NO.2. SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE SL.NO.3 & 6 SHRI SHARAD SHAH SL.NO.5 REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES (A.R.) A ND THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE (D.R.) SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE RA ISED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSEES AND T HE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THEM WHIL E ARGUING ONE APPEAL WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER APPEA LS ALSO AND THUS, ALL THE SIX APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, I, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE SIX APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER BUT HOWEVER, PROCEED WITH NARRATING THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1431/PUN/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 IN THE CASE OF SAI PRERANA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAH. PAT. SANSTHA MARYADIT. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- / DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.07.2019 3 ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 AND IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND ACCEPTS DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR A.Y. 2015-16 ON 29.09.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL AFT ER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.18,38,878/- U/S 80P OF THE ACT. T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.29.12.2017 AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS THUS DETERMINED AT RS.18,38,878/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.01.06.2018 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-6/ITO WD.10(5)/10297/201 7- 18) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) 6, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS, IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U /S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ITA, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.18,38,878/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-6, PUNE AND THE LEARNED AD ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ITA, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,38,878/-. THE IT AUTHORITIES ERRED IN TREATING T HE APPELLANT AS A 'BUSINESS FINANCER' INSTEAD OF A MERE CREDIT CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY (I.E. PAT-SANSTHA) DEALING WITH MEMBERS. 3. FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-6, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ITA,196 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM PUNE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPE RATIVE BANK. THE LEARNED IT-AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT DEPOSITS WERE KEPT WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS FROM SAFETY AND PRUDEN CE PERSPECTIVE. 4. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO . 1, 2 & 3, THE LEARNED IT AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT ALLOWING PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ITA, 1961 TO THE EXTENT OF ELIGIBLE INCOME EARNED; AGAINST THE TAXATION OF TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 18,38,878/- . 4 4. SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES I.E., ITA NOS.1361, 1386,1430 & 1517/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2015-16 AND ITA NO.1940/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15. THOUGH THE GROUNDS ARE WORDED DIFFERENTLY BUT THE CRUX OF THE GROUNDS IS DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLE CONTR OVERSY IS WITH RESPECT TO DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND WAS ACCEPTING THE DEPOSITS FROM THEM. AO NOTICED THAT ASSES SEE HAD PROVIDED CREDITS FACILITIES TO 10 NEW NON-MEMBERS AND THE AGGREGATE LOAN DISBURSED TO THESE NEW NON-MEMBERS WAS RS.9,14,500/ - AND ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST OF RS.46,901/-. A O ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PROVIDED CREDITS FACILITIES T O 9 NOMINAL MEMBERS TO WHOM THE AGGREGATE LOAN DISBURSED WAS RS.4,5 0,500/- AND HAS RECEIVED INTEREST AT RS.37,652/-. AO ALSO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED SURPLUS FUNDS WITH PDCC BANKS AND OTHER BANKS AND FROM WHICH ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST AG GREGATING TO RS.12,79,098/-. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS TO INVE ST THE SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND NOT WITH CO-O PERATIVE BANKS. AO NOTED THAT NO DETAILS FOR JUSTIFICATION WERE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AO NOTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAD PRO VIDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE NEW NON-MEMBERS AND NOMINAL MEMBERS BUT HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OF APPROVAL FROM THE MANAGING 5 COMMITTEE FOR BEING TAKEN THE NEW NON-MEMBERS OR NOMIN AL MEMBERS AND HAD SUBMITTED ONLY REGISTRATION NUMBERS AN D HENCE, ACCORDING TO AO, ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE BYE-LAWS OF T HE SOCIETY. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER ENROLLED THE NEW NON-MEMBERS OR NOMINAL MEMBERS NOR ANY ACTIVITIES W ERE CARRIED OUT BY THEM THEREBY VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF B YE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY BY ACCEPTING THE DEPOSITS FROM NOMINAL MEMBERS AN D NEW NON-MEMBERS. AO THEREAFTER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE WA S ACTED LIKE A REGULAR BANK BY ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM ANY PERSON AN D ALSO GIVING LOANS AND THEREFORE THE MAIN MOTTO OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO EARN MORE PROFITS. 7. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INV EST SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND NOT WITH THE CO- OPERATIVE BANKS AND THE INTEREST EARNED ON INVESTMENTS , SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE SATISFIED THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION TO QUALIFY AS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK NAME LY I.E., THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE TRANS ACTION OF BANKING BUSINESS AND THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY CAN BE TREA TED AS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK AND ALSO NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY SHOWS THAT IT HAS TA KEN THE CHARACTER OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF SHARE CAPITAL, S URPLUS RESERVES AND SURPLUSES WHICH WERE INVESTED IN BANKS OT HER THAN MENTIONED IN SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. HE NOTED THAT SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED SURPLUS FUNDS WITH PDDC I.E., CO-OPE RATIVE BANKS AND OTHER BANKS ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF 6 RS.18,38,878/- U/S 80P OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD T HE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH. IT IS SEEN THAT SEC.80P IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE ASSESSEES WHICH A RE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN THE SUB- SECTION-2(1) AND (B) OF SEC.80P. THE APPELLANT IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS IT IS REGISTERED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 AND THUS FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY MENTIONED IN SEC.2(19) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ACTIVI TY OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND PROVIDING CREDIT FAC ILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND THEREFORE GETS COVERED UNDER THE CLAUSE 80P(2)( A)(I) WHICH REFERS TO ANY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBER S. HOWEVER, WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SEC.80P(4), BY FINANCE ACT 2006 W.E.F. A.Y. 07-08, THE BENEFIT OF SEC.80P HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR CO-OPER ATIVE BANKS WHICH WERE HITHERTO ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UND ER THIS SECTION. THE RELEVANT SEC.80P(4) READS AS : THE PROVISION OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN R ELATION TO ANY CO- OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CR EDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOP MENT BANK. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUB-SECTION : A. CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDI T SOCIETY SHALL HAVE THE MEANING RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN P ART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 (10 OF 1949). B. PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELO PMENT BANK MEANS A SOCIETY HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFIN ED TO A TALUK AND THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FO R LONG TERM CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 6.1 SUBSEQUENT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF SEC.80P(4), C ONTROVERSY AROSE AS TO WHETHER ALL THE CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COOPERATIVE BANK MENTIONED IN SEC.80P (4). THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS IN THE COUNTRY AN D ALSO BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS. 6.1.1 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAFAR MOMIN VIKAS CO-O P. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. REPORTED IN [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 571 (GUJ.), THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HELD IN ITS ORDER DTD.15/1/2014 THAT SEC.80 P(4) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AN D IN RULING SO THAT IT RELIED ON THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT I N CIRCULAR NO.133 OF 2007 DTD.9/5/2007 IN RESPECT OF THE DELHI CO-OPERAT IVE URBAN THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 7 6.1.2 THE ITAT PUNE BENCH B IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. JANKALYAN NAGARI SAH. PAT SANSTHA LTD. REPORTED IN [2012] 24 TAXMANN .COM 127 (PUNE) FOR A.Y. 07-08 DTD.26/6/2012, HAS HELD THAT THE CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM CO-OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE BANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF BANKING REGULA TION ACT 1949 RELYING ON THE PRINCIPAL OF INTERPRETATION THAT THE RE IS NO INTENDMENT IN INTERPRETING THE STATUTES AND HAS TO BE STRICT AS T HE DEFINITIONS IN SEC.80P(4) ARE LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE. 6.1.3 THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ACIT CIR-3, HYDERABAD IN THE CIVIL APPEAL NO.10245/2017 DTD.8/8/2017 HELD THAT 80P(2)(A)(I) R ECOGNIZES TWO KINDS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NAMELY I) THOSE CAR RYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND II) THOSE PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IT FURTHER HELD THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE B USINESS OF A CO- OPERATIVE BANK, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A LICENSE FROM THE RBI AND THEREFORE HELD THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT I N THAT CASE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THAT OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SEC.80P(4). 6.1.4 CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE , THE APPELLANT ALSO CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AS IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LICENSE FROM THE RBI TO DO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(4) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT ALSO. 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON R ECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOMINAL MEMBERS WHO HAVE DEPOSITED MO NEYS AND ALSO AVAILED LOANS. THE NOMINAL MEMBERS ARE NOT REGULAR MEMBERS AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOTTED ANY SHARES OF THE SOCIETY AND THUS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY PROFITS OR ASSETS OF THE SOCIETY. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE AND ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE A MEMBER OF A COMM ITTEE OR FOR APPOINTMENT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOCIETY ON A NY OTHER SOCIETY. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY ACT 1960 PROVIDES FOR OPEN MEMBERSHIP AS PER SEC.23 OF THE A CT. THE SOCIETY CANNOT REFUSE MEMBERSHIP TO ANY PERSON DULY QUALIFI ED UNDER THE ACT AND ITS BY-LAWS. THE APPELLANTS SOCIETY BY ITS VE RY NATURE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO ANY CLASS OF PERSONS OR PEOPLE FROM A NY SPECIFIED AREA. AS BROUGHT BY THE AO, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ADMIT TING NEW MEMBERS WHO ARE IN NEED OF LOANS. THUS, THE ACTIVI TY OF THE APPELLANT IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF FINANCE. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CITED ABOVE, O N SIMILAR GROUNDS HELD THAT SUCH SOCIETIES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO D EDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT INVOL VED IN CO-OPERATIVE ACTIVITIES. THE BORROWERS AND THE DEPOSITORS ARE Q UITE DISTINCT. AS THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A) IS UPHELD. 7.1 AS THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT INVOLVED IN CO-OPERATIVE ACTIVITY, THE DEDUCTION U/S.80P ITSELF WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 P(2)(D) WOULD ALSO NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 8 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL. 8. BEFORE ME, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). BEFORE ME LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AO HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. ACIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.10245 OF 2017 ORDER DATED 08.08.2017. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E PRESENT FACTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA) WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ANDHRA PRADESH MUTUALLY AIDED CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENC E IN THE MEANING OF MEMBER AS PER ANDHRA PRADESH MUTUALLY AID ED CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT THE DEFINITION OF MEMBER AS PER T HE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960. HE SUBMITT ED THAT AS PER MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, MEMBERS IN CLUDE A NOMINAL, ASSOCIATE OR SYMPATHIZER MEMBER WHICH IS DIFFERENT IN ANDHRA PRADESH MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT . HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE CONTRARY, THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF MEMBERS WAS SOME- WHAT SIMILAR TO THAT OF TAMILNADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT , 1983. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE PLACED ON RECORD THE C OMPARATIVE CHART OF THE DIFFERENT RELEVANT CLAUSES IN THE ACTS OF SOCIE TIES APPLICABLE IN MAHARASHTRA, TAMILNADU AND ANDHRA PRADESH. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF PCIT VS. M/S. S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BAN K LTD. 9 REPORTED IN TAX APPEAL NO.882 AND 891 OF 2018 ORDER DAT ED 06.12.2018 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEFINITIO N OF MEMBERS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA), HAS DECIDE D THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. LD.A.R. FURTHER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRA L COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., (2004) 134 TAXMANN.COM 1 (BOM) SUBMIT TED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DEFINITION OF MEMBER GIVEN IN SEC.2(19) OF MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE S OCIETIES ACT TAKES WITHIN ITS SWEEP EVEN A NOMINAL MEMBER, ASSOCIAT E MEMBERS AND SYMPATHIZER MEMBERS AND HAS FURTHER OBSER VED THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN DULY REGISTERED MEM BER, NOMINAL AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER AND SYMPATHIZER MEMBER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OTHER REASON FOR DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED SU RPLUS FUNDS WITH CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA LTD., (ITA NO.598/PN/2011 ORDER DT.26.06.2012) HAS DECIDED T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JANKA LYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA LTD., (SUPRA), THE ISSUE BE DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED BY OTHER AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVES ALSO. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10 9. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT T O DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. I FIND THAT AO WHIL E DENYING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAD HELD THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TRE ATED AS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80P ON THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN BANKS OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONE D U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, HE DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. I FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTIC AL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA L TD., (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY NOTING AS UNDER : 8. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE DEFINITIO N OF THE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS GIVEN IN CLAUSE (CCII) OF SEC. 5 WHICH READS AS UNDER : CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MEANS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATI ON TO ITS MEMBERS AND INCLUDES A CO-OPERATIVE LAND MORTGAGE BANK; 9. THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 DEFINES OF CO-O PERATIVE BANK IN CL.(CCI) OF SEC. 5 (AS INSERTED BY SEC. 56 OF THE S AID ACT) AND CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS NOT INCLUDED BUT ITS ID ENTITY IS KEPT SEPARATE BY WAY OF INDEPENDENT DEFINITION IN VIEW OF CLAUSE (CCII) OF SEC. 5 OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT WHICH DEFINES WHAT IS ME ANING OF CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. ON PLAIN READING OF THE BANK ING REGULATION ACT, 1949, NOWHERE IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE TERM CO-OPE RATIVE BANK ALSO INCLUDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ALSO. MEANIN G OF ANY TERM OR EXPRESSION IS TO BE ASCERTAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF P ROVISIONS OF REFERRED ACT. AS PER SUB-SEC. (4) OF SEC. 80P OF THE I. T. A CT, CO-OPERATIVE BANK MEANS STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, A CENTRAL CO-OPERATI VE BANK AND A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS SEEN THAT COOPERAT IVE BANK IS DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2 )(A)(I) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE AO, ASSESSEE CO -OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE PRIMARY CO-OP ERATIVE BANK AND AS THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE COOPERATIVE BANK AND HENCE, IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF I. T. ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TAXING PROVISIONS THAT THE SAME ARE TO BE STRICTL Y CONSTRUED AND THERE IS N ROOM FOR ANY INTENDMENT. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTI ON AS TO TAX.NOTHING IS TO BE READ OR NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLI ED. ONE HAS TO FAIRLY LOOK INTO LANGUAGE USED BY THE PARLIAMENT. THE PARL IAMENT HAS ADOPTED THE DEFINITION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BY REFERRING THE SAME AS GIVEN IN THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. IT IS CALLED LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THE STRICT INTERPR ETATION WHILE 11 INTERPRETING THE EFFECT OF SUB-SEC. (4) TO SEC. 80 P. IN OUR OPINION, CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE F ROM THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NOR IT CAN BE SAID AS A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE B ANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUC TION U/S. 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 10. BEFORE ME, IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF JANKALYA N NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA LTD., (SUPRA). THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE. REVE NUE HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT N OR HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SAN SHTA LTD., (SUPRA) IN A.Y. 2007-08 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. 11. I FURTHER FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER O F AO, HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA). BEFORE ME, LD.A.R. HAS POINTED TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEFINITION OF MEMBER IN CASE OF ANDHRA PRADE SH MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995 AND MAHAR ASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 AND TAMILNADU CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETIES ACT, 1983. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEFINITION POINTED OUT BY LD.A.R. HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. D.R. I THUS FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R. THAT THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CA SE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. I FURTHER FIND THAT HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERA TIVE BANK (SUPRA), AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF CITIZEN CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 12 11. WE HAVE ELABORATELY HEARD THE LEARNED SENIOR S TANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. 12. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERE D UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TNCS ACT. IT DEFINES THE WORD 'ME MBERS' UNDER SECTION 2(16) TO MEAN A PERSON JOINING IN THE APPLICATION FOR TH E REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY AND A PERSON ADMITTED TO TH E MEMBERSHIP AFTER REGISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT, THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER AND THE BY-LAWS AND INCLUDES AN A SSOCIATE MEMBER. THE EXPRESSION 'ASSOCIATE MEMBER' IS DEFINE D UNDER SECTION 2(6) OF THE TNCS ACT TO MEAN A MEMBER, WHO POSSESSE S ONLY SUCH PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS OF A MEMBER AND WHO IS SUBJEC T ONLY TO SUCH LIABILITIES OF A MEMBER AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THIS ACT, THE RULES AND THE BY-LAW. 13. THUS, THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'MEMBERS' INCL UDES AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN TO AN ERROR IN DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CLASS MEMBERS AND B CLASS MEMBERS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ENTITLED TO A REL IEF UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE COOPE RATIVE SOCIETY SHOULD ANSWER THE DESCRIPTION OF A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMB ER. ONCE THE DESCRIPTION IS ANSWERED, THEN AUTOMATICALLY, THE BE NEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT WOULD STAND ATTRACTED SUBJECT TO THE PR OVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 14. FURTHER, IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT THAT IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED VIDE THE FINANCE ACT , 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.4.2007 I.E FROM THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007- 08, THE 'PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK' MEANS 'A SOCIETY HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFI NED TO A TALUK, THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FOR LONG TE RM CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES'. WHA T WAS EXCLUDED WAS THE 'COOPERATIVE BANKS' AND ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSE E SOCIETY IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 15. FURTHER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED WAS RELIED U PON BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH, IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 OF ITS ORDER DATED 28.2.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, EXTRACTE D THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THAT JUDGMENT. IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE SOCIETY CARRIED ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIE S, WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH MU TUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995 AND THAT THEY ACCEP TED DEPOSITS FROM THIRD PARTIES, WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS IN THE REAL SEN SE AND WERE USING THOSE DEPOSITS TO ADVANCE GOLD LOANS. THEREFORE, TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY OF THE SAID SOCIETY WAS THAT OF A FINANCE BUSINESS AND COULD NOT BE TERMED AS A COOPE RATIVE SOCIETY AND THAT THE LOANS, WHICH WERE DISBURSED, WERE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL FROM THE REGISTRAR OF MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETI ES, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE SAID SOCIETY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 13 16. IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO POINT OUT THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF INSERTION OF SUB-SECT ION (4) TO SECTION 80P OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT , 2006, SUCH DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE TO A COOPERATIVE BANK AND THAT IF IT IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THE DEDUCTION WOULD STILL BE PROV IDED. 17. IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE HAVE POINTED OU T THE DEFINITIONS OF THE EXPRESSIONS 'MEMBERS' AND 'ASSOCIATE MEMBER' UN DER THE TNCS ACT AND HELD THAT AN 'ASSOCIATE MEMBER' IS ALSO A 'MEMB ER' IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(16) OF THE TNCS ACT. FURTHERMORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HIMSELF FOUND THAT THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ARE ALSO A DMITTED AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELL INTO AN ERROR IN NOT GRANTING ANY RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY GRANTED BY THE CIT (A) AS CONFIRM ED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT THAT LOANS HAVE BEEN DISBURSED TO ALL AND SUNDRY IN TERMS OF T HE PROVISIONS OF THE TNCS ACT AND IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, THE SOCIETY HAS AN AREA OF OPERATION, OPER ATES WITHIN THE TALUK AND WILL PROVIDE LONG TERM CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AS WELL. THE CIT (A) RIGHTLY GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GO OD GROUND TO ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS. I FURTHER FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALGAON DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA ) HAS HELD THAT THE DEFINITION OF MEMBER GIVEN IN SECTION 2(19) OF TH E MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT TAKES WITHIN ITS S WEEP EVEN A NOMINAL MEMBER, ASSOCIATE MEMBER AND SYMPATHIZER MEMBER AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN DULY REGISTERED ME MBER AND NOMINAL, ASSOCIATE AND SYMPATHIZER MEMBER. I THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSHTA LTD., (SUPRA) AND FOLL OWING THE SAME HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.18,38,878/- U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AM OUNT INVESTED IN PDCC I.E., CO-OPERATIVE BANKS AND OTHER BANKS . I AM FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RATIO O F DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMAR Y AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD BE APPLICA BLE. I 14 THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN AB OVE AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLD THAT ASSES SEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1431/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2015-16 IS ALLOWED. 12. NOW I TAKE UP THE REMAINING APPEALS I.E., ITA NOS.1361, 1386,1430 & 1517/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2015-16 AND ITA NO.1940/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. 13. BEFORE ME ALL THE A.RS OF THE VARIOUS HAVE ADMITTED TH AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE I.E., SAI PRERANA GRAMIN BIGA RSHETI SAH. PAT. SANSTHA MARYADIT IN ITA NO.1431/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 201 5-16 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF CASE IN THE REMAINING APPEALS FOR A.YS.2014-15 AND 2015-16. I HEREINABOVE, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN CASE OF SAI PRERANA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAH. PAT. SANSTHA MARYADIT (SUPRA) HAVE HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. I THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS CITED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN CASE OF SAI PRERANA GRAMIN BIG ARSHETI SAH. PAT. SANSTHA MARYADIT (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS , HOLD THAT ALL THE ASSESSEES BEFORE ME IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES IN I.E., ITA NOS.1361, 1386,1430 & 1517/PUN/2018 FO R A.Y. 2015-16 AND ITA NO.1940/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 A RE ALLOWED. 15 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 3 RD DAY OF JULY, 2019. S SD/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 3 RD JULY, 2019. YAMINI !'!# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. THE CONCERNED CIT(APPEALS). THE CONCERNED CIT. !'##$%, ' $% , () / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; '+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // . /0#1$2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ' $% , / ITAT, PUNE.