ITO 21(3)(5), MUMBAI V. SHREE VISHVESHWAR SAHAKARI PATHPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

ITA 536/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5629 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE
• Section: 142(1); 80P; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 536 / MUM/ 201 9 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 4 - 15 ) ITO - 21(3)(5) ROOM NO.117, 2 ND FLOOR, PIRA MAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI - 400012 . / VS. SHREE VISHWESHWAR SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT TELLI SEWA SAMAJ, SHANKARRAO NARAM PATH, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400013. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABAS 5610 G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 0 7 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 / 0 7 / 201 9 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16 . 1 1 .201 8 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 33 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 . 2 . T HE 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) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH ( A R) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ASHOK J. PATIL ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FULFILS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 56(C)(CCV) OF THE PART V OF BANKING REGU LATION ACT, 1949, IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK, WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961?' 3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CARE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY VS. ACIT, DATED 17.04.2015 (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 133 (BOMBAY)?' 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS PER THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF HANK FROM WHICH IT HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME. FURTHER IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14, IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS HANK ACCOUNT WITH THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, WHICH IS A SCHEDU LED BANK.' 5. 'THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS HE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE RESTORED.' 6. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR TO ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSAR Y.' 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,770/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.84,52,508/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER MAHARASHTRA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1960. THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WAS TO P ROVIDE CREDIT/LOANS TO ITS MEMBERS AND COLLECT DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS BY WAY ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 3 OF FIXED DEPOSITS, SAVING DEPOSITS AND DAILY RECURRING DEPOSITS ETC. THE PAID UP CAPITAL OF THE CREDIT SOCIETY WAS RS. 1,47,76,340/ - AS ON 31.03.2014. THE TOTAL LOANS AND ADVANC ES & DEPOSITS WAS AN AMOUNTING TO RS.11,54,87,878/ - AND AN I NTEREST RECEIVED ON LOANS & FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANK WAS OF RS.84,52,508/ - . A SHOW - CAUSE NOTI CE DATED 31.10.2016 WAS ISSUED AND AFTER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2) (A)(I) READ WITH SECTION 80P(4) WAS DENIED. THE CLAIM OF THE INTEREST OF RS.84,52,508/ - U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.84,09,270/ - . F EELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT N ECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD.: - I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THIS CASE LONG WITH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) ARE 'A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS'. AS PER SECTION 80P(4), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P SHALL NOT APPLY IN _RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE. EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF SEC. 80P(4), THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CR EDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS CONTINUED TO BE ENTITLED FOR =DEDUCTION U/S 8CTP(2)(A)(I). THERE PROHIBITION U/S 80P NOT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO SUCH CO - OPERATIVE SO ET IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS RELATING TO ITS MEMBERS. 8,1 THE BANKING BUSINESS HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 5(B) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. 1949 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 'BANKING' MEANS THE ACCEPTING. FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OR INVESTMENT, OF DEPOSITS OF MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC, REPAYABLE ON DEMAND OR OTHERWISE, AND WITHDRAWAL BY CHEQUE, DRAFT , ORDER OR OTHERWISE. ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 4 8.2 THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 DEFINES A CO - OPERATIVE BANK IN CL, (CCI) OF SEC 5 (AS INSERTED BY SEC. 56 OF THE SAID ACT) AND CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS NOT INCLUDED THEREIN BUT ITS IDENTITY IS KEPT SEPARATE BY WAY OF INDEPE NDENT DEFINITION IN CLAUSE (CCII) OF SEC. 5 OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (CCI) 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' MEANS A STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK, A CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK (CCII) 'CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIE TY' MEANS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATION TO ITS MEMBERS AND INCLUDES A CO - OPERATIVE LAND MORTGAGE BANK; 8.3 THEREFORE, ON PLAN READING OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, NOWHERE IT IS SUGGESTED T HAT THE TERM 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' ALSO INCLUDES 'CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY' 8.4 THE PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS DEFINED IN CL, (CCV) OF SEC, 5 OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 AS UNDER: 1(CCV) 'PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK' MEANS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY - I) THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS TRANSACTION OF BANKING BUSINESS: II)THE PAID - UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES OF WHICH ARE NOT LESS THAN ONE LAKH OF RUPEES: AND III) THE BYE - LAWS OF WHI CH DO NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CC - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER: 8.5 THEREFORE, IN 'VIEW OF DEFINITION OF 'BANKING', 'CC - OPERATIVE BANK' AND 'PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK' AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT DEPOSI TS OF MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OR INVESTMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PRIME OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS BANKING BUSINESS, HENCE, IT WILL NOT BE A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. 8,6. IN THIS REGARD. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS AC1T DATED 17.04.2015 (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 113 (BOMBAY) W HEREIN IT IS. HELD THAT THE ASSESSES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK FOR THE ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 5 PURPOSES OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT, UNLESS FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED - (I) THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE BUSINESS OF BANKING ( II) ITS PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN RUPEE ONE /AC (III) ITS BYE - LAWS DO NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS ITS MEMBER 8 7. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SH RI VARDHAMAN URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ITA NO. 100038 OF 2014 DATED 21 - 09 - 2015), HAS HELD THAT ALL THE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) UNLESS THEY ARE DECLARED AS BANK BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THE EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUSLY DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT WHICH THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE IT ACT HAVE TAKEN UPON THEMSELVES TO INTERPRET IN THE, FACE OF THE BR ACT PRESCRI BING THAT IN THE EVENT OF A DISPUTE AS TO THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF ANY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (CCIV), (CCV) AND (CCVI) OF SECTION 56 OF THE BR ACT, A DETERMINATION THEREOF BY THE RESERVE BANK SHALL BE FINAL, WOULD RE QUIRE THE DISPUTE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES COULD TERM THE ASSESSEE AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK, FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, ANY OPINION EXPRESSED THEREFORE IS TENTATIVE AND IS NOT FINAL. THE VIEW EXPRESS ED BY THIS COURT, HOWEVER, AS TO THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P (4) OF THE IT ACT, SHALL HOLD THE FIELD AND SHALL BIND THE AUTHORITIES UNLESS HELD OTHERWISE BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.' SINCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS BANK BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. 8.8 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MIS. JAFARI MOM IN VIKAS COOP. CREDIT, 442, 44 3 AND 863 OF 2013 DATED 15TH JANUARY, 2014. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS RE - PRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 6 'FROM CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 133 OF 2007 DATED 9 5.2007 IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P WILL NOT APPLY TO AN ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK. IN THE CASE CLARIFIED BY CBDT, DELHI COOP URBAN THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. CIRCULAR CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID ENTITY NOT BEING A COOPERATIVE BANK, SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY TO IT. IN VIEW OF SUCH CLARIFICATION, WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE REVENUE'S CONTENTION THAT SECTION 80P(4) WOULD EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS OTHER THAN THOSE FULFILLING THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED THEREIN BUT ALSO CREDIT SOCIETIES, WHICH ARE NOT COOPERATIVE BANKS. IN THE P RESENT CASE, RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY NOT A CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE BANK BUT A CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT APPLY. 8.9 A FEW APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL ARE (I) ITO V S M/S. MUMBAI TELEWORKERS CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD - 2014 (7) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI. (II) ITO VS KULSWAMI CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ITA. NO. 3223/MUM!2011 & 5051 MUNI/2012. (III) JANKALYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. VS. ITO ITA NO.5981PN12011 . 9. MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 IN CASE OF APPELLANTS APPEAL FOR AY 2012 - 13 HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE 'IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION US 801P(2)(A)(I). 10. TO CONCLUDE, THE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FR OM THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 HENCE, THE APPELLANT BEING A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE INCOME EAR NED FROM THE APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 11. THOUGH THE AO HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS WITH BANKS, THE ISSUE IS SETTLED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF MUMBAI ITAT IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. SOME OF SUCH LTATS DECISIONS ARE AS UNDER: A) KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO - OP. SOCIETY LTD. IN ITA NO,6547/MUM/2017. ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 7 B) LAND END CO - OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. IN ITA NO.3566/MUM/2014 45 CCH 52). C) MERWANJEE CAMA PARK CO - OP. HSG. SOC. LTD. IN ITA NO.6139/MUM12014. D) M'S SEA GREEN CO - OP. HSG. SOC. LTD. IN ITA NO.1343/M/2017. 12 THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED FROM MEMBERS UIS.80P(2)(A)(I) AND INTEREST EARNED ON INVESTMENTS WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS AS DEDUCTION LAS 8013(2)(D). THE AO WILL TAX INTEREST FROM BANKS OTHER THAN CO - OPERATIVE BANKS WITHOUT A FLOWING ANY DEDUCTION . 5 . ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDING , WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF TH E DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF DECISION IN CASE OF QUEPEM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ACIT DATED 17.04.2015 (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 113 (BOM) AND ON THE BASIS OF DECISION IN CASE OF SHRI VARDHAMAN URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CR EDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. CIT (ITA. NO.100038 OF 2014 DATED 21.09.2015 AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO.OP CREDIT 442, 443 AND 863 OF 2013 DATED 15.01.2014. IT IS SPECIFICALLY HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BANKING BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS QUIT DISTINCT, HENCE, THE SOCIETY IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) (I) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO - 20(3)(4) VS. HCCS URBAN CO - OPERAITVE CREDIT SOCIETY IN ITA. NO.4823/M/2017 DATED 27.11.2018 AND ALSO IN THE CASE TITLED AS ITO - 21(2)(2) VS. M/S. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MA DHYAMIK IN ITA. NO.928/M/2018 DATED 26.06.2019 AND IN THE CASE TITLED AS ITO - 20(3)(4) VS. THE CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO - OP ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 8 CREDIT SOCIETY IN ITA. NO.5217/M/2017 DATED 27.03.2019 . NO DECISION CONTRARY TO THE DECISION RELIED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF T HE ACT. SO FAR AS THE INTEREST INCOME FROM CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT BANKING IS CONCERNED. THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN CASE TITLED AS OF ITO - 20(3)(4) VS. HCCS URBAN CO - OPERAITVE CREDIT SOCIETY IN ITA. NO.4823/M/2017 DATED 27.11.201 8 AND ALSO IN THE CASE TITLED AS ITO - 21(2)(2) VS. M/S. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK IN ITA. NO.928/M/2018 DATED 26.06.2019 AND IN THE CASE TITLED AS ITO - 20(3)(4) VS. THE CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO - OP CREDIT SOCIETY IN ITA. NO.5217/M/2017 DATED 27.03.2019 . SINCE THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES AND THE FACTS ARE NO T DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE, T HEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALSO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. IN BRIEF, WE NOWHERE FOUND ILLEGALITY AND IRREGULARITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E CIT(A) IN QUESTION, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . ITA NO. 536 /M/201 9 A.Y.20 14 - 15 9 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE D ISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 /07 /2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 19 / 07 / 2019 V IJAY / 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