ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Punjab State Coop. Agrl. Dev. Bank, Chandigarh

ITA 710/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 71021514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARMA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 56; 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.710/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) THE A.C.I.T., VS. M/S PUNJAB STATE COOP.AGRL. DEV. BANK, CIRCLE 2(1), SCO 53-54, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABAP8596L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.R. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 15.5.2015 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT AL L THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE ORD ER OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO.829/CHD/2013 DATE D 3.8.2015. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. THE GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD TO I NTEREST ARISING OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT). THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AT PAGE 2 IN PARA 4 ONWARDS WHILE THE FINDINGS ARE AT PAGE 4 IN PARAS 9 AND 10, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. NO DOUBT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THIS ISSUE WAS DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ORIGINALLY THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-0 3, 2003-04 & 2005-06 IN ITA NOS. 120, 563 TO 565/CHANDI/2007 & 392 TO 395/CHANDI/2008 BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 25.3.20 09. IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 8, 2010. THEREFORE, CLEARLY WHEN THE MATTE R WAS DECIDED THE BENEFIT OF DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WA S NOT AVAILABLE. IN THE LATER YEARS ALSO IT SEEMS THAT RE VENUE HAS NOT CITED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN FA CT, SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CIT V PUNJAB STATE COOPERA TIVE FEDERATION OF HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD (SUPRA ) BUT THAT DECISION WAS REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 643 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.5.2011. IT WAS OBSERVED A T PARAS 3 & 4 AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. NONE APPEARS FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE. 3 4. PLEA ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT INTERES T RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM COMMERCIAL BANKS WAS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERES T INCOME ON THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE MEMBERS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLA CED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE TOTGARS C OOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO 2010 (35) DTR 25 HOLDING TH AT INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES DERIVED BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACTIVITIES O F THE SOCIETY OF PROVIDING VARIOUS FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND WAS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 56 BEING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT APP EARS THAT SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PRIOR TO THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT HAVE ADVANTAGE OF THE LAW LAID DOW N THEREIN. THE MATTER IS THUS, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. CONTRARY VIEW OF THE TRIBUN AL CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 10. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS THA TTHE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO -OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE P RESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. IN FACT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS O BSERVED AS UNDER:- THE INTEREST INCOME ARISING TO A CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILI TIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, ON THE SURPLUS, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED IMME DIATELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, FROM INVESTMENT IN SHORT-TER M DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES, HAS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. SUCH INTEREST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY, VIZ., CARRYING ON THE BU SINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR MARKE TING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS. INTEREST INCOM E OF SUCH SOCIETY FROM AMOUNTS RETAINED BY IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRI-BUTABLE EITHER TO THE ACTIVITY MENTIONED IN S ECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OR SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) CANNOT BE PLACED ON A PAR WITH EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC , SECTION 80HHD( 3) AND SECTION 80HHE(5). 4 THE READING OF THE ABOVE HEAD NOTE WOULD SHOW CLEAR LY THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) IS AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE COR E ACTIVITIES I.E. ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING CREDIT TO ITS MEMBERS AND THE SAME IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE DEPLOYMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS WITH O THER BANKS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUP RA) AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PUNJAB STAT E COOPERATIVE FEDERATION OF HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD (SUPRA ) WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. SINCE NONE OF THE PARTIES HAS DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE FACTS IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH WE DEC IDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL N O.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR. 6. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENU E RELATES TO PROVISIONS OF NPA FOR THE PURPOSE OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. SIMILAR GROUND HAS B EEN ADJUDICATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T. , CHANDIGARH AT PAGE 6 IN PARA 11 ONWARDS, THE RELEVA NT FINDINGS ARE AT PARAS 15 AND 16, WHICH READ AS UNDE R : 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREF ULLY AND FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 VIDE PARAS 7 & 8 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 7. GROUND NO.2, RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALSO COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS INDICATED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND BY THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DATED 19.09.2012 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS), AS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 TO 4.2 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 5 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS AGAINST DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 756966/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR NPA MADE BY TH E APPELLANT. 4.1 SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT IN A.Y. 2007-08, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY MY PREDECES SOR BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD ADJUDICATED IN PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER, CITED SUPRA, AS UNDER: - 'THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS. 16,75,070/- REPRESENTING THE PROVISION ON ACCOUNT O F NPAS. THE PROVISION OF NPAS WAS MADE IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE LOANEES STARTED MAKING DEFAULTS IN RE-PAYMENT OF LO ANS. IN TERMS OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY NABARD FOR CREATI NG PROVISIONS DEPENDING UPON THE LENGTH OF DEFAULT, THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 16,75,070/- WAS SOUGHT TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SUCH A CLAIM COULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS OF BANKING. SINC E, IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BANKING B USINESS, THE CLAIM WAS DENIED. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAID CLAIM BUT THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCREASE IN INCOME WOULD RESU LT IN A HIGHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) (I) OF THE ACT . A GAINST SUCH DECISION, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISION FOR NPA HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CTT (APPEALS), BUT EV IDENTLY, THE INCOME RESULTING THEREOF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE EL IGIBLE FOR SOP (2) (A)(I) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND NO JUSTI FICATION FOR THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS NOTHING BROU GHT ON RECORD TO DISREGARD THAT THE INTEREST IRRECOVERABLE , WHICH IS EMBEDDED IN THE NPAS IS NOTHING BUT INTEREST RECEIV ABLE FROM MEMBERS, THOUGH NOT REGULARLY RECEIVED. IT IS ONLY THE DEFAULTED INTEREST INCOME, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION. IF THE SAID DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED, THE NATURAL CORO LLARY IS THAT THE ENHANCED INCOME WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR80P(2(A) ( I), TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED. IN FACT, SIMILAR I SSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF H.P.STATE CO-OPE RATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SAME CLAIM WAS HELD AS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT EVE N THE INTEREST WAS ALSO EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF PROVI DING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THEREFORE, ON THIS ASPEC T, WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE GRIEVANCE FOR THE REVENUE AND THE REVEN UE FAIL ON THIS ASPECT. 4.1.1. HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR IN A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE PARA 6 & 7 OF ORDER DATED 09.12. 2010 IN ITA NO. 1113/CHANDI/2010. 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF MY PREDECES SOR AND HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH ON THIS ISSUE AND I AM ENT IRELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY MY PREDECESSOR WHICH HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED BY HON'BLE ITAT. IN FACT, THE AD DITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS DELETED BY ME IN A.Y. 2008-09. HENCE, THE 6 ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED IN THIS YE AR ALSO. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 8. SIMILARLY, FINDINGS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.201 1 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.742/CHD/2011 ARE ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO . 2 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING DISALLOW ANCE OF PROVISIONS OF NPA IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80(P)(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DELIBERATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 9.12.2010 IN TURN RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 24.9.2009 (VIDE PARAS 5 & 6) WHICH IN TURN, F OLLOWED ITS OWN PRECEDENT OF ORDER DATED 25.3 2009 IN ITA N OS. 120/CHANDI/2007 AND OTHERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO 2005-06, AFFIRMING THE STAND OF THE C IT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- '5. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 41, 20,183/- REPRESENTING PROVISION OF NON PERFORMING ASSETS (NP AS). ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 25.3.2009 (SU PRA) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FOLLOWING WORDS: 12. THE SECOND ASPECT IS IN RELATION TO INCOME RESULTIN G ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,75,070/- REPRESENTING PROVISION OF NON-PERFORMING ASSETS (NPAS). THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS. 16, 75, 070/- REP RESENTING THE PROVISION ON ACCOUNT OF NPAS. THE PROVISION OF NPAS WAS MADE IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE LOANE ES STARTED MAKING DEFAULTS IN RE-PAYMENT OF LO ANS. IN TERMS OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY NABARD FOR CREATING PROVISIONS, DEPENDING UPON THE LENGTH OF DEFAULT, THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 16,75,070/- WAS SOUGHT TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SUCH A CLAIM COULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS OF BANKING. SINCE, I T WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BANKING BUSINESS, THE CLAIM WAS DENIED. IN APPEAL, THE CLT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R- WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAID CLAIM, BUT THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCREASE IN INCOME WOULD RESULT IN A HIGHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. AGAINST SUCH DECISION, THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 13. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISION FOR NPA HAS BEEN SUSTAINE D BY THE CIT (APPEALS), BUT EVIDENTLY, THE INCOME RE SULTING THEREOF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISREGARD THAT THE INTEREST IRRECOVERABLE, WHICH IS EMBEDDE D IN THE NPAS IS NOTHING BUT INTEREST RECEIVABLE FRO M MEMBERS, THOUGH NOT 7 REGULARLY RECEIVED. IT IS ONLY THE DEFAULTED INTEREST INCOME, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION. IF THE S AID DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED, THE NATURAL COROLLARY IS THAT THE EN HANCED INCOME WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR SOP(2) (A) (I), TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED. IN FACT, SIMILAR ISSUE CAM E UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SAME CLAIM WAS HELD AS EL IGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THA T EVEN THE DEFAULTED INTEREST, WAS ALSO EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THEREFORE, ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE GRIEVANCE FOR THE REVENUE AND THE REVENUE FAIL ON THIS ASPECT. ' 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, AS THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FOLL OWING THE PRECEDENT, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS AS PECT IS ALSO HEREBY AFFIRMED. AS A RESULT, ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE REV ENUE FAILS. 8. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND FO11OWING THE AFORE SAID PRECEDENT, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE GRO UND OF APPEAL NO, 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL, REFERRED TO ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 16. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND O F APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO GROSS INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOANS ADV ANCED TO THE EMPLOYEES TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAID G ROUND HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE I.T .A.T. AT PAGE 9 IN PARA 17 ONWARDS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE IN PARA 19, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 8 19. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIN D NO FORCE IN THESE CONTENTIONS BECAUSE OF OUR FINDINGS IN RESPEC T OF GROUND NO.2 CONTAINED IN ABOVE PARA NOS. 4 TO 10. WE MAY EMPHASIZE THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN TH AT DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE ONLY AGAINST THE CORE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. EXTENDING OF LOANS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AN D GIVING LOANS TO THE STAFF CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE CORE ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSE E. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH, WE DECIDE THIS I SSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 I S DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. THE GROUND NOS.5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH OCTOBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 9