MAHARASHTRA STATE CO -OP. AGRI., MUMBAI V. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4808/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88131 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER JIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M C NANIWADEKAR
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAS: 2008-09 TO 2012) MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL VS. D C I T - 1(3) MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 15-A, MORVI LANE, CHOWPATTY GIRGAUM, MUMBAI 400007 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AAAM9669E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M.C. NANIWADEKAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURINDER JIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 09.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.02.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK AND TH EY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-2, MUMBAI. WE ARE CONCERNED HEREIN WITH A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2011-12. SINCE ONE OF T HE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF T HESE APPEALS BY A COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IS CONCERNED WITH AVAILABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE FROM A.Y. 2007-08 ONWARDS. HOWEVE R, FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON LOSS FIGURE AND EVEN THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED THEREIN IS UNDER CHALLENGE AND PENDING BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, THE BENCH, WHICH HEARD THE STAY PETITION PERTAINING TO A.Y. 20 08-09 ONWARDS, DID NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO POST THE APPEAL ON OUT OF TURN BASIS FOR A.Y. 2007- 08. BOTH THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) PASSED DETAIL ED ORDERS, BY INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDERING THE ISSUE ON MERITS, AND HENCE A DECISION CAN BE ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 2 RENDERED INDEPENDENTLY IN THE APPEALS FROM A.Y. 200 8-09 ONWARDS. THUS THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ARE POSTED BEFORE THE BENCH. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE RAISED 13 GROUNDS. GROU ND NOS. 1 & 13 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND GROUND NO. 11 IS NOT PRES SED. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 4. VIDE GROUND NOS. 4 & 12 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN VIEW OF PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUNDS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.8 AS OBSERVED, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED T HE RELEVANT AUDITED ACCOUNTING INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE I NCOME THAT HAS ACCRUED ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. IT IS NOT ADEQUATE TO MERELY RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, BUT IT IS MANDATORY TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND AUDITED STATEMENT S, SO THAT AN OPPORTUNITY IS ALSO GIVEN TO THE A.O. IN TERMS OF R ULE 46A OF THE I T RULES, 1962. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SUCH INFORMATION EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE QUANTUM OF SUCH CLAIM TH EREOF IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. FURTHER, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MEMB ERS OF A MUTUAL SOCIETY OR ASSOCIATION ALONE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION/ DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCO ME. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES PREDOMINA NTLY INVOLVE BANKING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES, WHICH HAS RESULTE D IN SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS AND INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME. THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB VS CIT REPORTED AT 350 ITR 509 , HAS HELD THAT THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY SHALL NOT BE EXT ENDED TO THE INTEREST INCOMES EARNED BY A MUTUAL ASSOCIATION OR A SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOMES ARE EXIGIBLE TO THE TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. AS OBSERVED, IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANTS INCOME PREDOMINANTLY CONSISTS OF INTERE ST INCOME AND PROFITS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES. IN VIEW OF THESE DISTINGUISHING FACTORS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. NO MATERIAL, WHATSOEVER, WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO HI GHLIGHT THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS OUTSIDE THE CANOPY OF TH E RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT (SUPRA). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES GROUND NOS. 4 & 12 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 3 6. VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT TH E ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(A) OF THE ACT. BRIEF FACTS, RELEVANT TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE, DESERVE TO BE NOTICED. THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1935 UNDER THE BOMBAY COOPE RATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1925 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY T O ITS MEMBERS WHICH IN TURN TO BE UTILISED FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMEN T. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT IS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1949; IT NEITHER CARRIES ON NOR IS LICENCED TO CARR Y ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. IT IS ENTITLED TO LEND MONEY FOR AGRICULTURE AND RU RAL DEVELOPMENT AND IT IS REFINANCE ORIENTED AND THE BANK GETS ITS REFINANCE FROM THE STATE/CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS AND NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND R URAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD) ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE, BY FLOA TING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DEBENTURES. THE LOANS ARE GIVEN TO DIST RICT BANKS, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, WHO IN TURN PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURISTS/AGRICULTURE LABOURERS/RURAL ARTISANS . BY ITS VERY CONSTITUTION THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RUR AL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK AND HENCE IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT . 7. THE AO, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS A REFINANCING AGENT AND SUCH AN ENTITY IS NOT ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER RELIED UPON SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS INSERTED FROM A.Y. 2007-08, TO OBSERVE THA T IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF B ANKING OTHER THAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY COOPERATIV E AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THE AO, THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS NEITHER PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY NOR A PRIM ARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK AND HENCE E XCLUSION INTENDED UNDER SECTION 80P(4) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSES SEE. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THA T ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIET IES ACT, 1960 IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT HAS ITS OWN BYE-LAWS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS NOT DOING ANY BANKING ACTIVITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 5( 1)(B) OF THE BANKING ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 4 COMPANIES ACT, 1949. IT WAS ALSO NOT GOVERNED BY RE SERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1934. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO SECTION 80P(4 ) OF THE ACT TO SUBMIT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK AND H ENCE IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALS O REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS, IN HIS OPINION, IT WAS NEITHER A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURA L AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED D.R. REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE IT AT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF KERALA SATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVE LOPMENT BANK LTD. 58 DTR 1 AND IN PARTICULAR TO PARAS 4 & 5 TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT IT IS A COOPE RATIVE BANK BUT THE OTHER ASPECT, I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING PRIM ARY SUPPORT TO MEMBERS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AND THUS THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION O N THIS ASPECT, BY ANY HIGHER FORUM, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH THE MATTER DESERVES TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH ADJUDICATION. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE THE BYE-LAWS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT I T WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT IT HAS UNDERTAKEN PRIMARY LEVEL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. BOTH THE PARTIES ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE AFORECITED DEC ISION. IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10. VIDE GROUND NOS. 5 TO 10 THE ASSESSEE RAISED SEVERA L ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIONS, WHICH WOULD SUBSIST ONLY IF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) AND (2)(D) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE IS SET ASIDE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, ALL THE ALTER NATIVE CONTENTIONS WOULD BE OF ACADEMIC IMPORTANCE AND THEREFORE, WITH THE CONS ENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ISSUES ARE SET ASIDE FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION I N THE EVENT OF CONSIDERING THE MAIN ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. NEEDLESS T O OBSERVE THAT THE AO, ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 5 WHILE PASSING CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER, SHALL INDEPENDEN TLY CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE ISSUES ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 11. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO GROUND NOS. 1 & 11 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION. 12. VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN P ARA 9 ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO AND CIT(A) AND DIRECT T HE AO TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH LIBERTY TO THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THA T IT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, ETC. THROUGH ITS M EMBERS. 13. VIDE GROUND NO. 4 THE SOCIETY CONTENDS THAT THE INC OME OF THE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN VIEW OF PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALI TY. THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COUNT REPORTED IN 350 ITR 509. FOR THE REASONS GIVE N IN PARAS 4 & 5 ABOVE WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 10 ARE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS WHICH A RE DISPOSED OF BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, IT DESERVES TO BE NOTI CED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON THE ENTIRE INCOME UN DER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT THEN THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS SHALL NOT SURVIVE AND DISPOSAL OF SUCH ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS WOULD BE OF ACADEMIC IMPORTANCE . WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE SET ASIDE THESE GROUNDS TO THE AO FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE OBSERV ATIONS OF THE AO/CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IT ALSO DESERVES TO BE NOTI CED THAT IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENC E THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BECOME INFRUCTOUS. T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR C LAIMING DEDUCTION AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 80 P OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS FOR WHICH ASSESSE E IS ELIGIBLE FIND MENTION IN THE ACCOUNTS BUT THE AO DID NOT TOOK THE SAME INTO ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 6 CONSIDERATION SINCE IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE RE TURNED INCOME AND THE CIT(A), PRESUMABLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOTEZ INDIA LTD., OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIO NS. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS P. LTD. 23 9 ITR 336. HERE ALSO THE LEARNED D.R. HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION F OR THE MATTER BEING SET ASIDE THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. W E HOLD ACCORDINGLY. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 15. IN THIS APPEAL GROUND NOS. 1 & 10 ARE GENERAL IN NA TURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION. 16. VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT I T IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED BY US ELABORATELY IN PARA 9 ABOVE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR READJUDICATION IN LINE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH (SUPRA). 17. VIDE GROUND NO. 4 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXEMPTION FRO M TAX, ON THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT P RINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY ARE APPLICABLE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARAS 4 & 5 ABOVE, BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE REPO RTED IN 350 ITR 509 WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREFORE DISMISS GROUND NO. 4. 18. VIDE GROUND NOS. 5 TO 9 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EVENT OF NO N-GRANTING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN PARA 10 ABOVE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 19. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THERE FORE DO NOT REQUIRE INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 7 20. VIDE GROUND NO. 7 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXEMPTION OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT PRINCIPLES OF MUTUA LITY ARE APPLICABLE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARAS 4 & 5 ABOVE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. VIDE GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT I TS INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT . THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY US, IN DETAIL, IN PARA 9 ABOVE. FOR T HE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION. 22. VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS IN THE EVENT OF NOT GRANTING BEN EFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THESE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIO NS SUBSIST ONLY IN THE EVENT OF DECIDING GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US IN PARA 10 ABOVE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, WE HEREBY RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED HERE THAT THE GROUNDS REFER TO THE ADJUD ICATION MADE BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1989-90, 1992-93 AND 1995-96, BUT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80P, WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERN ED HEREIN, IS EFFECTIVE FROM AY 2007-08 AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR TO A.Y. 2007-08. 23. GROUND NO. 8 IS WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF L EVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS ADMITTED THAT CHARGE ABILITY OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, A T THE TIME OF PASSING CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER THE AO SHALL PROPERLY RECOMPUTE THE TAX COMPONENT AND CHARGE INTEREST ACCORDINGLY. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 ITA NO. 4806 TO 4808 & 6053/MUM/2014 MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. AGRI. RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV. BANK LTD. 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 2, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 1, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.