IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 352/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ITO GONDA V. M/S CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNI ON LTD., BALRAMPUR PAN: AAALP0029P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. VIVEK GUPTA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. J. N. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 01.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.12.2011 O R D E R PER S UNIL KUMAR YADAV : T HIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALL ED AS THE ACT) ON THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON INVESTMENTS AND FDRS. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO , WARD I , LA KHIMPUR KHERI V. CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED, PALLIA KALAN, DISTT. LAKHIMPUR KHERI IN ITA NO. 512/LUC/2008 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ON INTEREST I NCOME EARNED OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS LYING DEPOSITED IN THE POST : - 2 - : OFFICE/COMMERCIAL BANK AND DIVIDEND, OTHER THAN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT W HILE HOLDING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ITS EARLIER ORDER ON IDENTI CAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD II, LAKHIMPUR KHERI V. CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED BHEERA, DISTT. LAKHIMPUR KHERI AND OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 124/LUC/2007 TO 129/LUC/2007. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHILE ADJ UDICATING THE ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. SINCE A CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 3 . THE LD. D.R. HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM THE CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT A CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL NOT ONLY IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE BUT ALSO IN OTHER CASES OF DIFFERENT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. WE , HOWEVER , HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN BY THE LD. D.R. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.12.2011. SD/ - SD/ - [B. R. JAIN ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.12.2011 JJ: 0112 : - 3 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR