BORIVALI JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD. , MUMBAI V. ITO-32(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5230/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8100 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMA
• Keywords: Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 56; 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 5230/MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 BORIVALI JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD., 9-A GIRIRATH, KARTER ROAD NO. 3, BORIVALI EAST, MUMBAI-400066. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-32(1)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051. PAN NO. AAAAB 2094 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. SMITA VERMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/03/2021 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2015-16. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-44, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)] AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT 1961, (THE ACT). THOUGH THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.03.2021 , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE ABOVE DATE. AS THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSES SEE, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL AFTER EXAMINING THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE (DR). MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INTERES T INCOME OF RS.16,49,464/- EARNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) O R 80P(2)(A)(I). 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE PAR T OF THE INVESTMENTS WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WERE STATUTORY (MANDATORY) INVES TMENTS AND NOT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AND INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS WAS E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D). 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INTERE ST EARNED ON STATUTORY INVESTMENTS FORMS PART OF INCOME FROM CARRYING ON B USINESS OF BANKING AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2015-16 ON 2 4.08.2015 DECLARING NIL INCOME. IN THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2017 PASSED U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY AND DOING BANKING BUSINESS ; IT COLLECTS DE POSITS FROM MEMBERS FROM VARIOUS SCHEMES ; ITS MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME AS EVI DENT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOAN GIVE N TO MEMBERS AND INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH BANKS. IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAIS ED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ON 24.05.2017 STATING THAT : BORIVALI JANAKALYAN SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD. IS REGI STERED AS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES ACT, 1960. THE SOCIETY IS GOVERNED BY THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 AND RULES FRAMED THERE UNDER AND THE SUPERVISION OF THE COMMISSIONER & REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 3 THE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER BANKING REGULAT ION ACT, 1949 WITH RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE BUSINESS OF THE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FA CILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. THE SOCIETY COLLECTS/ACCEPTS/RAISE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL, DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS AND PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBER S ONLY, AND THE SOCIETY INVEST THE REMAINING FUNDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66, 70 AND RULES 54 AND 55 AND THE BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY THE TOTAL FUNDS WHICH IS CONTRIBUTED/COLLECTED FROM MEMBERS OR GENERATED IN THE ACTIVITY OR BUSINESS OF SOCIETY HAS TO BE UTILI ZED BY THE SOCIETY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AND PRIORITIES. A) TO PROVIDE CREDIT SOCIETIES TO MEMBERS WITHIN TH E FRAMEWORK OF THE ACT, RULES & BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY. B) TO INVEST THE STATUTORY RESERVE & FUNDS AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66 & 70 OF THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVES SOCI ETIES ACT AND RULES 54 & 55 AND PROVISIONS OF THE BYE-LAWS OF OUR SOCIETY. C) TO KEEP CASH AND BANK BALANCES AND LIQUID INVEST MENT TO MEET THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT OF THE SOCIETY. AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION-80P(2)(A)(I) IN THE CAS E OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CR EDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSI NESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES WHICH IS INCLUDED IN GROSS TOTAL INCOME THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ABOVE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY, WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS BANKING BUSINESS AND ITS SHAR E CAPITAL AND RESERVES EXCEEDS RS. ONE LACS (THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE SOCI ETY AS ON 31.03.2015 IS RS.50 LACS) AND IS REGISTERED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND THEREFORE, IT FALLS WITHIN THE DE FINITION OF CO-OPERATIVE MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 4 BANK PROVIDED IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. THE AO HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER A PRI MARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY NOR A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED BY HIM THAT AS PER EXPLANATOR Y NOTE TO FINANCE BILL, BUT FOR TWO PRIMARY UNITS I.E. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CRE DIT SOCIETY AND PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, ALL THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P W. E.F. AY 2007-08. THUS IT IS HELD BY HIM THAT AS PER THE EXPLANATORY NOTE AND TH E NEW SUB-CLAUSE (VIIA) IN CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, A C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IS ALSO COVERED BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.21,16,023/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.06.2019 THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT . RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCEITY LTD. REPORTED IN 188 TAXMAN 282 (SC), THE LD. CIT(A) HEL D THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS WILL BE TAXABLE U/S 56 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM INVESTMENT IN SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OR 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGL Y RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80P TO RS.16,49,464/-. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE B ANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OR 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 5 CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80P TO RS.16,49,464/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM INVESTME NT MADE IN CO-OPERATIVE BANKS. THUS THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE BONE OF CONTENTION HERE IS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT INTERESTS INCOME EARNED FROM INVESTMENT OF SUR PLUS FUNDS WITH CO- OPERATIVE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OR 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. IN CIT V. KALPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD . (2016) 74 TAXMANN.COM 226 (MADRAS), THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT HELD THAT A CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIE S TO ITS MEMBERS ALONE AND NOT TO GENERAL PUBLIC LARGE NOR IT DID RECEIVE MONE YS BY WAY OF DEPOSITS ON GENERAL PUBLIC, WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CO-OPERATIV E BANK ; IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P. IN CIT V. NILGIRIS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETIES LT D . (2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 23 (MADRAS), AGAIN THE HONBLE MADRAS H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY WA S PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ALONE AND NOT GENERAL PUB LIC LARGE AND IT ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE MONIES BY WAY OF DEPOSITS ON GENERAL PU BLIC, IT WOULD NOT BE TURNED AS CO-OPERATIVE BANKS. 6.1. FURTHER THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF PCIT AND ANOTHER VS. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 392 ITR 0074 HAS HELD IN PARA 8 TO 11 AS UNDER:- 8. THE ISSUE WHETHER A CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS CONSIDERE D TO BE A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA . FOR THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT ITSELF IN DIFFERENT CASES. MOREOVER THE WORD 'CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY' ARE THE WORDS OF A LARGE EXTENT, AND DENOTES A GENUS, WHEREAS THE WORD 'CO-OPERATIVE BANK' IS A WORD OF LIMITED EXTENT, WHICH MERELY DEMARCATES A ND IDENTIFIES A PARTICULAR SPECIES OF THE GENUS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY CAN BE OF MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 6 DIFFERENT NATURE, AND CAN BE INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES; THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK IS MERELY A VARIETY OF THE CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETIES. THUS THE CO- OPERATIVE BANK WHICH IS A SPECIES OF THE GENUS WOUL D NECESSARILY BE COVERED BY THE WORD 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY'. 9. FURTHERMORE, EVEN ACCORDING TO SECTION 56(I)(CCV) OF THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1949, DEFINES A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY B ANK AS THE MEANING OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET Y BANK WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE WORDS 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY'. 10. ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST WHICH THE ASSESSEE RESPON DENT HAD EARNED WAS FROM A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED FROM A CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETY BANK WOULD BE DEDUCTABLE FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF THE CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY IN ORDER TO ASSESS ITS TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE SAID DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE RESPONDE NT. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. V. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283/188 TAXMAN 282 (SC). HOWEVER, TH E SAID CASE DEALT WITH THE INTERPRETATION, AND THE DEDUCTI ON, WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. FOR, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INTERPRETATION THAT IS REQUIRED IS OF SECTION 80P(2 )(D) OF THE I.T. ACT AND NOT SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, TH E SAID JUDGMENT IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, NEITHER OF THE TWO SUBST ANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE EV EN ARISE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR PUR POSE OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) A CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY 6.2 LET US CONCLUDE WITH A RECENT JUDGMENT DATED 12 TH JANUARY 2021 . IN THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (2021) 123 TAXMANN.COM 161 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED TH AT: 39. THE ABOVE MATERIAL WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LIMITED OBJECT OF SECTION 80P(4) IS TO EXCLUDE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS THAT FUNCTI ON AT PAR WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS I.E. WHICH LEND MONEY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THUS, I F THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 IS NOW TO BE SEEN, WHA T IS CLEAR FROM SECTION 3 READ WITH SECTION 56 IS THAT A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK CANNOT BE A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY, AS SUCH CO-OPERATIVE B ANK MUST BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AS DEFINED BY SECTION 5( B ) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 7 1949, WHICH MEANS THE ACCEPTING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OR INVESTMENT, OF DEPOSITS OF MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC. LIKEWISE, UNDER SECTION 22(1)( B ) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AS APPLICABLE TO CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL CARRY ON BANKING BUSINESS I N INDIA, UNLESS IT IS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK AND HOLDS A LICENCE ISSUED IN THAT B EHALF BY THE RBI. AS OPPOSED TO THIS, A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY IS A CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATI ON TO ITS MEMBERS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WIT H AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT : 45. TO SUM UP, THEREFORE, THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF C ITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA), MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. SECTION 80P OF TH E IT ACT, BEING A BENEVOLENT PROVISION ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT TO ENCOURAGE AND PR OMOTE THE CREDIT OF THE CO- OPERATIVE SECTOR IN GENERAL MUST BE READ LIBERALLY AND REASONABLY, AND IF THERE IS AMBIGUITY, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. A DEDUCTION T HAT IS GIVEN WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION CANNOT B E RESTRICTED OR LIMITED BY IMPLICATION, AS IS SOUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE BY ADDING THE WORD 'AGRICULTURE' INTO SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) WH EN IT IS NOT THERE. FURTHER, SECTION 80P(4) IS TO BE READ AS A PROVISO, WHICH PR OVISO NOW SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH ARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS I.E. ENGAGED IN LENDING MONEY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUB LIC, WHICH HAVE A LICENCE IN THIS BEHALF FROM THE RBI. JUDGED BY THIS TOUCHSTONE , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED FULL BENCH JUDGMENT IS WHOLLY INCORRECT IN ITS READ ING OF CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA). CLEARLY, THEREFORE, ONCE SECT ION 80P(4) IS OUT OF HARM'S WAY, ALL THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I), NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THEY MAY ALSO BE GIVING LOANS TO THEIR MEMBERS WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO AGR ICULTURE. ALSO, IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES OF LOANS BEING GIVEN TO NON-MEMBERS, PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH LOANS OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE DEDU CTED. TO SUMMARIZE THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TH AT THE LIMITED OBJECT OF SECTION 80P(4) IS TO EXCLUDE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS THAT FUNCTION AT PAR WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS I.E. WHICH LEND MON EY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC . 6.3 TO SUM UP: IN TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA), THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR PURPOSE OF S ECTION 80P(2)(D) A CO- OPERATIVE BANK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY. IN MAVILAYI MR. BORIVALI JANKALYAN ITA NO. 5230/M/2019 8 SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD . (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, BEING BENEVOLENT P ROVISION ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT TO ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THE CREDIT OF T HE CO-OPERATIVE SECTOR IN GENERAL MUST BE LIBERALLY AND REASONABLY, AND IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SCENARIO IN THE PR ESENT CASE AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/03/2021. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 30/03/2021 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. 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./ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI