LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1810/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5120 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MICHAEL JERALD
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 80P; 2(19)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1810/M/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD., 20, LAS PALMAS, LITTLE GIBBS ROAD, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI 400 006 PAN: AAABL0207A VS. ITO 19(2)(1), ITO, WARD 19(2)(1), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO, NANA CHOWK, GRANT ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.P. MAHAJANI, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI MICHAEL JERALD, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05.2020 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VAR IOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF AD DITION BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO OF RS.10,90,230/- BY DENYI NG DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P 2(D) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS NOT A C OOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THREE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS A CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P2(D) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY INTERE ST EARNED ON THE MONEY/DEPOSIT KEPT BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ANY OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO B Y THE AR ARE AS UNDER: 1. LADY RATAN TOWER COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ITA 1152/MUM/2018 2. KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LT D. ITA6547/MUM/2017 3. LAND'S END CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ITA3 566/MUM/2014 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE O RDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BY SUBMITTING THAT CO-OPERATIVE B ANK IS NOT A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT A BANK WHICH FUNCTIONS UND ER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION WAS RIGHTLY DENIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT DURIN G THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE EARNED RS.10,90,230/- FROM A COOPERATIVE B ANK WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS. THE ASS ESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND PERUSING THE DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE LD. A.R., WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P2(D) OF THE ACT AS THE COOP. BANK IS FIRST REGISTERED AS SOCIETY AND THEN BANKING LICENSE IF GRANTED TO IT TO DO BANKING BUSINESS. IN THE CA SE OF LADY ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 3 RATAN POWER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. I TO (SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION CI TED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT ON SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL, THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FO R 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 ASSESS EE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D), IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EA RNED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE WITH THE COOPERATIVE BANKS IS IN O RDER OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HINGE S AROUND THE ADJUDICATION OF THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 8 0P, AS HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE VIDE TH E FINANCE ACT 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT PURSUANT TO INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SE C. 80P, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE C. 80P(2)(D) OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE AMOUNTS PARKED AS INV ESTMENTS WITH CO- OPERATIVE BANKS, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOP MENT 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 P RIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FO R CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WIT H THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MA Y HEREIN REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION, V IZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D), AS THE SAME WOULD HAVE A STRONG BEARING ON THE ADJUDICATIO N OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. (1). WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2). THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY :- (A)................................................ ............................................ (B)................................................ ............................................ (C)................................................ ............................................ ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 4 (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY O THER 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 WAY OF INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSESSEE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH ANY OTHER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE, THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DERIVED F ROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE THOUGH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERV ATIONS 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-O PERATIVE BANK, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRI MARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUT HOWEVE R, ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VIEW THAT THE SAME SHALL ALSO JE OPARDISE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC. 80P( 2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON THEIR 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 T HE INTEREST INCOME IS BEING DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTME NTS MADE WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D) WOULD BE DULY AVAILA BLE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE TERM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAD BE EN DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2(19) OF THE ACT, AS UNDER:- '(19) 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY' MEANS A COOPERATIVE SO CIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), O R UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGIST RATION OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES;' WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, THAT THOUGH THE CO-O PERATIVE BANK PURSUANT TO THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WOU LD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT, BUT H OWEVER, AS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK CONTINUES TO BE A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTE RED 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 REGISTRATI ON OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED B Y A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 8. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS 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-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D ) FOR THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIV E BANK IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 5 (I) LAND AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. I TO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (MUM) (II) M/S C. GREEN COOPERATIVE HOUSING AND SOCIETY L TD. VS. ITO-21(3)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1343/MUM/2017, DATED 31.03.2017 (III) MARVWANJEE CAMA PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCI ETY LTD. VS. ITORANGE- 20(2)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6139/MUM/2014, DATED 27.0 9.2017. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE HIGH C OURT 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 ELIGIBLE FOR CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER, WE FIND THAT T HE 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 CO- OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH ARE FUNCTIONING AT PAR WITH OTHER BANKS WOULD NO MORE B E ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(4) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOC IETY LTD. VS. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283(S.C) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, TH US, HAD WRONGLY BEEN RELIED UPON BY HIM. THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS IN CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I), AND NOT ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TOWARDS DEDUCTION UNDER S EC. 80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO -OPERATIVE BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACE BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S VAIBHAV COOPER ATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY VS. ITO-15(3)(4) (ITA NO. 5819/MUM/2014, DATED 17.0 3.2017 IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ORD ER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTITLEM ENT 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 AFORESAI D 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 TH AT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, WOULD BE OF NO ASSISTANCE FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. STILL FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R O N THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SMC BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAI DATTA C O-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 TH E SAID MATTER THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THAT AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 395 ITR 6 11 (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 THA T AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF K. SUBR AMANIAN AND ANR. VS. ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 6 SIEMENS INDIA LTD. AND ANR (1985) 156 ITR 11 (BOM), WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF NON-JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURTS, THEN A VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PR EFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAKEN AGAINST HIM. THUS, TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE AF ORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDIC TION, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGAR S COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (GUJ), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO- OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 9. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVA TIONS ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT 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 IN COME 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 O F 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). 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON ALMOST S IMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FO R BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT OUR INDULGENCE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN SOUGH T TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80P(2)(D), IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE WI TH THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS IS IN ORDER OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HINGES AROUND THE ADJUDICATION OF THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SUB-SECT ION (4) OF SEC. 80P, AS HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE VI DE THE FINANCE ACT 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT PURSUANT TO INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80 P, THE 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-OPERAT IVE BANKS, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO -OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 7 DEVELOPMENT BANK. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE CO- OPERATIVE BANK WITH WHICH THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PARKED AS INVESTMENTS, WERE NEITHER PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CRED IT SOCIETY NOR A PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FO R CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY HERE IN 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 BEF ORE US. 80P(2)(D) (1). WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2). THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY :- (A)................................................ ............................................ (B)................................................ ............................................ (C)................................................ ............................................ (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME; THUS, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SEC. 80P(2)(D ) IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSE SSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOC IETY, SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE, THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D ) IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE THOU GH 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 F ROM 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 PRI MARY 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 DEDUCTI ON OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INC OME ON THEIR INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFU L CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS LO NG AS IT IS PROVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS BEING DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS MADE WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D) WOULD BE DULY AVAILABLE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE TERM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAD BEEN DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2(19) OF THE ACT, AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 8 (19) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEANS A COOPERATIVE SO CIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), O R UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGIST RATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES; WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, THAT THOUGH THE CO-O PERATIVE BANK PURSUANT TO THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WOULD NO M ORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT, BUT HOWEVER, A S A CO-OPERATIVE BANK CONTINUES TO BE A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BE ING ENFORCED IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THEREFORE, T HE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 8. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS THAT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PART IES 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 INC OME DERIVED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK IS COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) LAND AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. I TO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (MUM) (II) M/S C. GREEN COOPERATIVE HOUSING AND SOCIETY L TD. VS. ITO21(3)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1343/MUM/2017, DATED 31.03.2017 (III) MARVWANJEE CAMA PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCI ETY LTD. VS. ITORANGE- 20(2)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6139/MUM/2014, DATED 27.0 9.2017. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS CO OPERATIVE 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), HAD ALSO HE LD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO-O PERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14, DATED 28.12.2006, 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 B E ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(4) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. I TO (2010) 322 ITR 283(S.C) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, HAD WRONGLY BEEN RE LIED UPON BY HIM. THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORE SAID CASE WAS IN CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I), AND NOT ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY TOWARDS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCO ME ON THE INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE RELIANCE 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/2 014, DATED 17.03.2017 IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ORD ER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 9 CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) O F THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IT WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THAT THE TRIBUN AL AFTER CARRYING OUT A CONJOINT READING OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) R.W. SEC. 80P(4) HAD A DJUDICATED THE ISSUE BEFORE THEM. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D .R ON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THUS, WOUL D 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 OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 395 ITR 611 (KARN), THE HIGH CO URT 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 CO URT 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 ASSESSEE IS T O BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAKEN AGAINST HIM. THUS, TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE AF ORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION, WE RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (201 7) 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 INT EREST INCOME EARNED BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE A CT. 9. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVA TIONS ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D), IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS M ADE WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND CONCLUDE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.27,48,553/- EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON THE INVESTMENTS HELD WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ONS OF CO- ORDINATE BENCHES SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CO-OPERATIVE BANK. ITA NO.1810/M/2019 M/S. LAS PALMAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC. LTD. 10 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.05.2020. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27.05.2020. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.