INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(5), KALYAN V. KANCHANGAURI MAHILA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

ITA 5175/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3985 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 5175 / MUM/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3 KALYAN, 2 ND FLOOR, RANI MA NSION, MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN (W) - 421301 . / VS. KANSHANGAURI MAHILA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT 1 ST FLOOR, RIDDHI SIDDHI COMPLEX MALVIYA ROAD, RAMNAGAR DOMBIVLI (E) - 421201 . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABAK 6464 E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 30 . 10 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31. 10. 2 01 8 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26 . 05 .201 7 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2 0 13 - 1 4 . 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ' . 1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH (DR) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI V. G. G INDE & KUMAR KALE (AR) ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 2 OF RS.68,21,517/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING ABOVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND ADVANCING LOAN S TO ITS MEMBERS WHICH ARE THE PRIMARY ACTIVITIES OF ANY BANK WHETHER CO - OPERATIVE OR OTHERWISE. 3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING ABO V E RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT C BENCH MUMBAI IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT BOTH THE DECISIONS WERE NOT ACCEP TED BY THE REVENUE ON MERITS AND SL P WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 29 . 0 3 .20 1 6 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 39,900 / - AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.68,21,517/ - . THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CLAIM U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY ON 10.12.2015 AND CONSIDERING THE REPLY, THE AO DENIE D THE CLAIM U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.68,61,417/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFO RE US. ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 3 4 . ALL THE ISSUES ARE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM BY THE CIT(A) U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE BANKING BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITL ED TO THE CLAIM U/S 80P(4) OF THE ACT BUT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD: - 8. 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS, OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES FROM AND TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS A CO - OPE RATIVE BANK OR NOT BECAUSE IF THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO, MEN DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S. 80P(L) IS TAKEN AWAY IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P{4) OF THE I.T. ACT, OTHERWISE, IF THE APPELLANT IS A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIE TY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO MEMBERS, THEN WHOLE OF THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ARC ALLOWED TO THE SOCIETY AS DEDUCTION U/S, 80P(2)(A)(I), AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN REASON WHY THE AO HAS DISALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLAN T IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE AO THOUGH THE APPELLANT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK BUT AS THE APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED DEPOSITS AND PROVIDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, THE SAME WAS THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY OF ANY BANK. THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND DEC IDED IN DETAIL IN THE APPELLANTS' OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 BY THE CIT(A) BY HOLDING AS UNDER - '8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS, OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT IS A PRIMAR Y CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES FROM AND MEMBERS ONLY. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK OR NOT BECAUSE IF THE APPELLANT IS ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 4 HELD TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO, THEN DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S. SOP(J) IS TAKEN AWAY IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, OTHERWISE, IF THE APPELLANT IS A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, THEN WHOLE OF THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ARE ALLOWED TO THE SOCIETY AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) L FIX CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN REASON WHY THE AO HAD DISALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT H THAT ACCORDING TO THE AO THOUGH THE APPELLANT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK B UT AS THE APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED DEPOSITS AND PROVIDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO US MEMBERS, THE SAME WAS AKIN TO THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY OF ANY BANK. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT ACCEPTS DEPOSITS AND PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES MEMBERS ONLY, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AS HELD IN RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS UNDER 9. IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN CO - OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER - 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AS THE SAME IS REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AD. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF INCOME EARNED ON PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AS PROVIDE D TINDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. IT IS APPELLANT'S CASE THAT, IT IS NOT CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF THE BANKING. CONSEQUENTLY, NOT BEING A CO - OPERATIVE HANK THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT EXCLUDE THE APPELLANT FROM CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A}(I) OF THE ACT HOWEVER IN TERMS OF SECTION SOP OF THE ACT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS COOPERATIVE BANK IS THE MEANING ASSIGNED FAIL IN CHAPTER F OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. A COOPERATIVE BANK IS DEFINED IN SECTION 5(CCI) OF BANKING REGULATION ACT LO MEAN A STATE COOPERATIVE BANK A CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK AND A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK. ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT IF, NOT A STATE COOPERATIVE BUNK, A CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK. THUS WHAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK AS DEFINED IN PARA F OF HE BANKING REGULATION ACT. SECTION 5{CCV) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT DEFINES A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BUNK TO MEAN A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH CUMULATIVELY SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS: ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 5 (!) ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OR PRIMARY OBJECT SHOULD BE BANKING BUSINESS OF BANKING; (2) ITS PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAT RUPEES ONE LAKH. (3) ITS BYE - LAWS DO NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER COOPERATIV E SOCIETY AS ITS MEMBER. IT IS ACCEPTED POSITION THAT CONDITION NO. (2) IS SATISFIED AS THE SHARE CAPITAL IN AN EXCESS OF RUPEES ONE LAKH. IT HAS BEEN THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CONDITIONS NO. (1) AND (3) PROVIDED ABOVE ARE NO! SATISFIED. 10. THER EFORE THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS - WHETHER THE APPELLANT SATISFIES CONDITION NO. (I) AND (3) ABOVE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER AFTER REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF 'BANKING BUSINESS ' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 5B OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, HELD THAT THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS BANKING. SECTION 5B OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT DEFINES BANKING TO MEAN ACCEPTING OF DEPOSITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OF INVESTMENT OF DEPOSIT OF MONEY FROM THE WHICH: REPAYABLE ON DEMAND OR OTHERWISE. THE I MPUGNED ORDER JUXTAPOSES THE DEFINITION WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DID DEAL WITH NON MEMBERS IN A FEW CASES BY SEEING DEPOSITS. THIS READ WITH BYE TAW 43 LEADS TO CONCLUSION THAT IT IS CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS. THIS FACT OF ACCEPTING D EPOSITS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS HAS BEEN SO RECORDED BY SHE C1T(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 15 JULY, 2014. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO SHE APPELLANT DID TINT DISPUTE THE FAD THAT IN A JEW CASES THEY HAVE DEALT WITH NON MEMBERS. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM NON - MEMBERS IS CONCERNED IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BYE - LAW 43 ONLY PERMITS THE SOCIETY TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT BYE LAWS 43 DOES NOT PERMIT RECEIPT OF DEPOSITS FROM PERSONS OTHER THAN MEMBERS, THE WORD 'ANY PER SON' IS A GLOSS ADDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS IT IS NOT FOUND IN BYE LAW 43. IL IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH NON - MEMBERS. ON THE ABOVE BASIS IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT'S PRINCIPAL BUS INESS IS OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC AND T HEREFORE IT IS IN BANKING BUSINESS. IN FACT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ERRONEOUSLY RELIES UPON BYE - LAW 4$ OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ENABLES THE SOCIETY TO RECEIVE DEPOSITS TO CONCLUDE THAT IT CAN RECEIVE DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RELIES UPON BYE - LAW 43 LO CONCLUDE THAT II ENABLES ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 6 THE APPELLANT TO RECEIVE DEPOSITS FROM ANY PERSON IS RIOT CORRECT. THUS IN THE PRESENT FADS SHE FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS OF BANKING IS PERVERSE AS IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD S O FAR AS THE ISSUE OF PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED THE IMPUGNED ORDER GIVES NO FINDING ON THAT BASIS TO DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER SETS OUT THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH HAS 2 4 OBJECTS HUT THEREAFTER DRAWS NO SEQUITER TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT JA FLANKING. CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE SAME AS THAT IS NOT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ORDER HOLDS THAT IS A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK. 11. IN THE AB OVE VIEW, THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AS THE. SINE QUO NON TO CARRY ON BANKING BUSINESS IS A LICENCE TO BE ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, WHICH IT ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT HAVE, IS NOT BEING CONSID ERED. 12. SO FAR AS CONDITION NO 3 OF THE DEFINITION/MEANING OF PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5(CCV) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME REQUIRES THE BYE LAWS OF SOCIETY TO CONTAIN A PROHIBITION FROM ADMITTING ANY OTHER C OOPERATIVE SOCIETY AS ITS MEMBER. IN FACT THE BYE - LAWS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ORIGINALLY IN BYE - TAW 9(D) CLEARLY PROVIDED NO CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL HE ADMITTED TO SHE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SOCIETY. THUS THERE WAS A BAR BUT THE SAME WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 12 JANUARY, 2001 IS TO PERMIT A SOCIETY TO BE ADMITTED TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEARS THERE IS NO PROHIBITION TO ADMITTING A SOCIETY TO AND ONE OF THREE CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE IT COOPERATIVE HANK I S NOT SATISFIED. HOWEVER THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE AMENDED CLAUSE 9(D) OF THE APPELLANT'S BYE LOWS TO MEAN THAT IT II SOCIETY LO BE ADMITTED TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE APPELLANT AND ' - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, A SOCIETY AND A CO - OPERAT IVE SOCIETY ARE CLEARLY WORDS OF DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT SIGNIFICANCE AND THE MEMBERSHIP W ONLY OPEN SO SOCIETY AID NOT TO A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THE WORD SOCIETY AX REFERRED TO BYE LAW 9(D) WOULD INCLUDE T HE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THIS IS TO AS THE DEFINITION OF A ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 7 SOCIETY UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE ACT IS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE COOPERATIVE ACT. BESIDES SHE QUALIFYING CONDITION 3 FOR BEING CONSIDERED AS A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BUNK 14 - THAT THE B YE LAWS MUST NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. THIS IS A MANDATORY CONDITION I.E. THE BYE LAWS MUST SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT ADMISSION OF ARTY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO ITS MEMBER SHIP. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUCH PR OHIBITION IN THE BYE LAWS OF THE APPELLANT. THUS EVEN THE AFORESAID QUALIFYING CONDITION (3) FOR BEING CONSIDERED US A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK IS NOT SATISFIED THU THE THREE CONDITIONS TIS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 5(CVV) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. 1949 ARE TO BE SATISFIED CUMULATIVELY AND EXCEPT CONDITION ARE NOT SATISFIED. ERGO TWO QUALIFYING CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED. ERGO, APPELLANT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO IHE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 13. THE CONTENTION OF MS. DESSAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT DEALS 'WITH NON - MEMBERS CANNOT BE UPHELD. THIS FOR THE REASON (HAT SECTION 80P(L) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE BENEFITS OF DEDUCTION OF INCOME OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SO THE EXTENT IT IS EARNED BY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO US MEMBERS. THEREFORE TO THE EXTENT THE INCOME EARNED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEALINGS WITH THE NON - MEMBERS FIRE CONCERNED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, A! THE TIME WHEN EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ORDER OF THIS COURT , THE AUTHORITIES UNDER ACT WOULD RESTRICT THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAME IS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IN CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 14 ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS FRAMED IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FIND AGAINST THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FACTS OF THE CASE DISCUSSED AS ABOVE AND RELYING ON JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT GU JRAT HIGH COURT AND HIGH COURT, A? DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 8 ITS MEMBERS AND CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(4) OF ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE APPE LLANT'S CASE AND THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT, AS CLAIMED. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. 5 . ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDING , WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS NOT DOING THE BANKI NG BUSINESS HAVING NO LICENCE FROM RBI, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80P( 4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. WE ALSO NOTICE D THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA. NO. 369/M/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED T HE FINDING OF THE SAID CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. NO DISTINGUISHABLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY JUDICIOUSLY AND CORR ECTLY WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERE D WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE D ISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31. 10 . 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31. 10 . 2018 . V IJAY ITA NO. 5175 /M/2017 A.Y.20 1 3 - 1 4 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI