Ajara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur V. Income-tax Officer, Kolhapur

ITA 911/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7092 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ GARG ITA NOS
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 43B; 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO. 911/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 AJARA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. 15/34, A/P GAVASE, TAL. AJARA, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAAA0496R .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), KOLHAPUR. / RESPONDENT / ITA NO. 912/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 AJARA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. 15/34, A/P GAVASE, TAL. AJARA, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAAA0496R .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG 2 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 / DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-1, KOLHAPUR DATED 31.01.2017 AND 19.01 .2017 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 201 3-14 AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SSK GROUP CASES TAK ING THE CASE OF MAJALGAON SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED VS. ACIT, CIRC LE-3, AURANGABAD ITA NO.308/PUN/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS LEAD C ASE. 3. THE LD. DR CONCEDED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSE E. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN SSK GROUP CASES TAKING THE CASE OF MAJALGAON SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD ITA NO.308/PUN/2018 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS LEAD CASE WHEREIN APPEALS OF THE ASSESS ES ARE FULLY/PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: II. ADDITION FOR SUGAR GIVEN TO MEMBERS AT CONCESS IONAL RATES [APPEALS IN WHICH KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR K ARKHANA LIMITED (SC) NOT CONSIDERED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES ] 3 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 10. IN SOME OF THE APPEALS, THERE IS ANOTHER ISS UE OF GIVING SUGAR TO MEMBERS AT CONCESSIONAL RATES. SUCH GROUND IS AGAIN ST THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PRICE DIFFERENCE ON CERTAIN QUANTITY OF SUGAR GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS AT CONCESSIONAL RATE. 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUG H THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET PRICE AND THE CONCESSIONAL PRICE AT WHICH SUGAR (FINAL PRODUCT) WAS GIVEN TO FARMERS AND CANE GROWERS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHA R KARKHANA LIMITED (2012) 27 TAXMANN.COM 162 (SC). VIDE JUDGMENT DATE D 25-09-2012, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT NOTICED THAT THE DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN THE AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD IN THE MARKET AND THE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS MEMBERS AT CONCESSIONAL RATE WAS TA XED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE HEAD APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT . THE HONBLE SUMMIT COURT REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A) FOR CONSIDE RING, INTER ALIA,: WHETHER THE ABOVEMENTIONED PRACTICE OF SELLING SUGAR AT CON CESSIONAL RATE HAS BECOME THE PRACTICE OR CUSTOM IN THE CO-OPERATIVE S UGAR INDUSTRY?; AND WHETHER ANY RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING THE PRACTICE?; THE CIT(A) WOULD ALSO CO NSIDER ON WHAT BASIS THE QUANTITY OF THE FINAL PRODUCT, I.E. SUGAR, IS B EING FIXED FOR SALE TO FARMERS/CANE GROWERS/MEMBERS EACH YEAR ON MONTH-TO- MONTH BASIS, APART FROM OTHERS FROM DIWALI? THE ISSUE UNDER CO NSIDERATION CAN BE DECIDED BY AN APPROPRIATE LOWER AUTHORITY ONLY ON T HE TOUCHSTONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS NOTED IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR IF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON TH IS SCORE ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AOS, INS TEAD OF TO THE CITS(A), FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD IN THE MARKET AND THAT SOLD TO MEMBER S AT CONCESSIONAL RATE IS APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT OR NOT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA SAHAKA RI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED (SUPRA). RESTORATION TO THE AO IS NECESSITA TED BECAUSE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TASGAON TALUKA S.S.K. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF EXCESSIVE PRICE TO THE FILE OF AO, AND AS SUCH, THE INSTANT I SSUE CANNOT BE SENT TO LD. CIT(A) AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SENDING ONE PART OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE AO AND OTHER TO THE CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. III. DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO AREA DEVELOPME NT FUND 12. ANOTHER ISSUE IN SOME OF THE APPEALS IS AGAIN ST THE DELETION/CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF AREA DEVELOPMENT FUND. 13. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FO R CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SIDDHESHWAR SA HAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED VS. CIT AND OTHERS (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC). IN THAT CASE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED IN PARA 44 THAT THE RECEIPTS IN THE FORM OF AREA DEVELOPMENT FUND ALWAYS REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO NOTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 4 5 THAT THE REALISATIONS MADE TOWARDS THE AREA DEVELOPMENT FUND WERE IMPRESS ED WITH THE SPECIFIC LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR SP ECIFIED PURPOSES WHICH WERE UNRELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SUGAR FACTOR Y AND HENCE, COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVENTUALLY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REMITTED THE MATTER BACK FOR FRESH DETERMINAT ION. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN 4 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CITS(A) HA VE NOT CONSIDERED THE IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED (SUPRA) AND DECIDE D THE ISSUE WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE FACTORS DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERE D IN THE AFORENOTED CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT, WE SET-ASIDE SUCH IMPUGNED ORDERS AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE RESPECTIVE AOS FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GU IDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. IV. DISALLOWANCE FOR LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES SH ARE IN EPF ETC. 14. ANOTHER ISSUE IN SOME OF THE APPEALS IS AGA INST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE FOR DELAYED DEPOSIT OF ESI / EPF EMPLO YEES SHARE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TOWARDS EPF AND ESI. THE DETAILS OF DUE DATES AND ACTUAL PAYME NTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE AO, THEREF ORE, MADE SUCH DISALLOWANCE, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIR ST APPEAL. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ISSUE RAI SED HEREIN IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE A MENDMENT TO FIRST PROVISO AND OMISSION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTI ON 43B BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, IS RETROSPECTIVE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AIMIL LIMITED (2010) 321 ITR 508 (DELHI) HAS ALLO WED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES SHARE WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS PAI D BEFORE THE DUE DATE. WHEN WE CONSIDER THESE TWO JUDGMENTS, IT IS M ANIFESTED THAT BOTH THE EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION ARE ALLO WABLE AS DEDUCTION IF THESE ARE DEPOSITED ALBEIT BELATEDLY UNDER THE RESP ECTIVE ACTS, BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 16. IT IS SEEN AS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASS ESSEES IN SUCH CASES DEPOSITED THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS EPF A ND ESIC BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE AFORENOTED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IN THE FIRST APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND. V. PROVISION FOR VASANTDADA SUGAR INSTITUTE (VSI) CONTRIBUTION : 17. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IN SOME OF THE APPEALS I S AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO VAS ANTDADA SUGAR INSTITUTE (VSI). THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PRO VISION FOR VASANTDADA SUGAR INSTITUTE (VSI) CONTRIBUTION AND CLAIMED WEIG HTED DEDUCTION AT 125% U/S.35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID TO THE INSTITUTE. THE SAME BEING ONLY IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.35(1)(II). THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING AN ORDER PASSED BY THE PUNE BENCHES OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHIMA S.S.K. LTD. (ITA NO.1414/PUN/2000). 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROU GH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS DETERMINED THIS ISSUE 5 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE PUNE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHIMA S.S.K. LTD. (SUPRA). NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THI S ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN REVERSED OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DECIDE THI S ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. VI. CONTRIBUTION TO CHIEF MINISTER RELIEF FUND : 19. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IN SOME OF THE APPEALS I S AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO CHIEF MINISTER RELIEF FUND. 20. THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN T HE CHIEF MINISTER RELIEF FUND AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME IN ITS PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THIS FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE S TATE GOVERNMENT IS COVERED U/S.80G(IIIHF) OF THE ACT AND, AS SUCH, THE CONTRIBUTION IS DEDUCTIBLE AT 50% OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE SUMS SPEC IFIED. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT, WHICH ACTION CAME TO BE COUN TENANCED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUG H THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID MAKE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER RELIEF FUND. AS AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS DEDUCTION IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT , THE AO OPINED THAT THE SAID CONTRIBUTION WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0G(IIIHF) OF THE ACT AT THE RATE OF 50% ALONG WITH OTHER QUALIFYING SUMS. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80G(IIIHF) WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO ON SUCH CONTRIBUTION IN THE COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT UPHOLD THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. APPROVING THE ADDITIONS MADE, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR GRANTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80G(IIIHF) AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. VII. KHODKI CHARGES 22. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IN SOME OF THE APPEALS IS AGAINST NON-GRANTING OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF KHODKI CHARGES. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO JUSTIFY SUCH DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE AS PER THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF SUGAR. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AT THE TIME OF HARVESTING, THE HARVESTING LABO UR CUT MORE PART OF THE UPPER SIDE OF THE CROP AND THEREFORE, TO COMPENSATE LOSS IN WEIGHT TO THE GROWER, THE SAID KHODKI CHARGES WERE PAID TO THE FA RMERS. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION TENDERED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF SUGAR, ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, WAS ISSUING DIRECTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF KHODKI CHARGES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PROPOSAL SENT BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MANJARA SHETKARI SSK LTD. AND OTHE RS (2008) 301 ITR 191 (BOM.), AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 23. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUG H THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT KHODKI CHARGES WERE INC URRED AS PER THE 6 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 DIRECTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SUGAR TO COMPENSATE F OR THE FARMERS LOSS FOR UNEVENLY CUTTING OF CANE SUGAR AT THE TIME OF HARVE STING. THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. MANJARA SHETKARI SSK LTD. (2004) 85 TTJ (MUM.)(SB) 369, WHICH GRANTED DEDUCTION FOR SAID EXPENSES. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE A FORENOTED CASE APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING DE DUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH KHODKI CHARGES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDE D THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF JADAMBA SSK LTD., ON SIMILAR ISSUE, HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 23-0 3-2009. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT KHODKI CHARGES HAVE BEEN HELD AS DEDU CTIBLE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE RECENT JUDGMENT O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TASGAON TALUKA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LT D. (SUPRA) DOES NOT COVER KHODKI CHARGES, WE HOLD THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. VIII. DEDUCTION U/S.80P ON INTEREST AND DIVIDEND 24. IN SOME OF THE APPEALS THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ON INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME IS ALSO INV OLVED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ON INTE REST AND DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW SUCH DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) OVERTURNE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POINT AND GRANTED DEDUCTION. THE REVENUE I S AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ALLOWING OF DEDUCTION. 25. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUG H THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 80P READS AS U NDER : - 80P. (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT T O THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL B E THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY : (A) TO (C) (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY O THER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME; ........ 26. A CURSORY LOOK OF THE ABOVE PROVISION DECIPH ERS THAT ANY AMOUNT OF INTEREST OR DIVIDEND DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 80P(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVE N A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE CO-OPERA TIVE BANK FROM WHICH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED INCOME WAS EARNED, IS ALSO A CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY DULY REGISTERED UNDER MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIE TIES ACT. THIS CONTENTION HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR WITH ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE OF THE AO ON THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P IS MISPLACED. SUCH PROVISION STATES THAT : ` 7 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN R ELATION TO ANY CO-OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIE TY OR A PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. AS THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THE MANDA TE OF SUB-SECTION (4) DOES NOT EXTEND TO IT. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE A CT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH FACTS. 27. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE FULLY/PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH T HE APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. RES PECTFULLY, FOLLOWING OUR DECISION, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FULLY/PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FULLY /PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- R.S.SYAL PA RTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2019. SB !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEAL)-1, KOLHAPUR. 4. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLHAPUR. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 8 ITA NOS.911 & 912 /PUN/2017 A.YS.2012-13 & 2013-14 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 29 .0 4 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29 .04 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER