MEHERBAD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., Mumbai v. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 2418/MUM/2019 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 241819914 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAAAM1739M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2418/MUM/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant MEHERBAD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., Mumbai
Respondent ACIT-19(2), Mumbai
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 05-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 03-08-2020
First Hearing Date 03-03-2021
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 16-04-2019
Judgment Text
I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2418/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 ) MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD 1/594 MEHERABAD BHULABAI DESAI ROAD WARDEN ROAD MUMBAI 400026 VS. ACIT - 19(2) MATRU MANDIR TARDEO MUMBAI - 400007 PAN NO. AAAAM1739M (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH A.R REVENUE BY : MS. SMITA VERMA D.R DATE OF HEARING : 03/03 /2021 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 /03/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD J.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A - 18 MUMBAI DATED 14.03.2019 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) DATED 11.12.2017 FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GRO UND S OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2 )(D) AMOUNTING TO RS.19 36 997 / - BY WAY OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSIT WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME BY REJECTING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SEVERAL JUDGMENTS CITED BEFORE HIM. 3. THE A.O HAS WRO NGLY CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234A B & C AND WR ONGLY INITIATED PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C). I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE A CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16 ON 28.09.2015 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.25 42 220/ - . THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBS ERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF RS.19 36 997/ - . AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE W.R.T THE INTEREST INCOME TH AT WAS EARNED BY IT FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS. OBSERVING THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) WAS ONLY AS REGARDS THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANOTHER CO - OPERATIVE SO CIETY THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOM E EARNED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK DID NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE . ACCORDINGLY O N THE BASIS OF EXHAUSTIVE DELIBERATIONS THE A.O DECLINED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF RS. 19 36 997/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER THE CIT(A) WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT TH E CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE W.R.T ITS ENTITLEMENT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. OBSERVING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INVESTMENTS OF SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT T HE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 9 36 997/ - UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) SO MADE BY THE A.O . 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS : (I) M/S SEA GREAN CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(3)(2) MUMBAI ITAT (II) INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(1)(4) VS. M/S CITISCAPE CO OP HO USING SOCIETY LTD. MUMBAI ITAT (III) M/S PARSIK JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER MUMBAI ITAT 50 ITD 318 MUM. I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 3 (IV) M/S JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AHMEDABAD (V) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S DIVYAJYOTHI CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BANGALORE (VI) M/S K ALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO - OP SOCIETY LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER MUMBAI (VII) M/S LADY RATAN TOWER COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. IN C OME TAX OFFICER MUMBAI (VIII) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AN ANOTHER VS. TOTAGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. IT WAS THE CLA IM OF THE LD. A.R THAT AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK FELL WITHIN THE REALM OF THE DEFINITION OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 2(19) OF THE ACT THUS NO ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARD S ITS ENTITLEMENT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF ITS INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS HELD WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK WAS LIABLE TO BE DRAWN. 6. PER CONTRA THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THEM TO DRIVE HOME THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE SOLITARY ISSUE FOR WHICH OUR INDULGENCE HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE BY PREFERRING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY A CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS LYING WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R AND RIGHTLY SO THE ISSUE HEREIN INVOLVED IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO - 21(2)(1) MUMBAI ITA NO.6547/MUM/2017 DATED 25.04.2018 HAD CONCLUDED THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD DULY BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF ITS INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATI VE BANK. IN ITS AFORESAID ORDER IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UND ER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT OUR INDULGENCE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS IS IN ORDER OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HINGES AROUND THE ADJUDICATIO N OF THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P AS HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE VIDE THE FINANCE ACT 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 4 PURSUANT TO INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P THE ASSESSEE WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE AMOUNTS PARKED AS INVESTMENTS WITH CO - OPERATIVE BANKS OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK WITH WHICH THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PARKED AS INVESTMENTS WERE NEITHER PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY NOR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK THEREFORE THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE IS SUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER WE MAY HEREIN REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D) AS T HE SAME WOULD HAVE A STRONG BEARING ON THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. 80P(2)(D) (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 DEDUC TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO 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 BE THE FOLLOWING NAMELY : - (A)............... ............................................................................. (B)............................................................................................ (C)............................................................................................ (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME; THUS FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SEC. 80P(2)(D) IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE THOUGH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT WITH THE INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P VIDE THE FINANCE ACT 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8 0P WOULD NO MORE BE APPLICABLE IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUT HOWEVER ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VIEW THAT THE SAME SHALL ALSO JEOPARDISE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON THEIR INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT AS LONG AS IT IS PROVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS BEING DERIVED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS MADE WITH ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION VIZ. SEC. 80P(2)(D) WOULD BE DULY AVAILABLE. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE TERM CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAD BEEN DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2(19) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: - I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 5 (19) CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEANS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1912 ( 2 OF 1912) OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK PURSUANT TO THE INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WOULD NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT BUT HOWEVER AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK CONTINUES TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1912 (2 OF 1912) OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING ENFO RCED IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THEREFORE THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 8. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U NDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) FOR THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) LAND AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (MUM) (II) M/S C. G REEN COOPERATIVE HOUSING AND SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO - 21(3)(2) MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1343/MUM/2017 DATED 31.03.2017 (III) MARVWANJEE CAMA PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO - RANGE - 20(2)(2) MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6139/MUM/2014 DATED 27.09.2017. WE FURTHER FI ND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 5 78 (GUJ) HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14 DATED 2 8.12.2006 AS HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SEC. 80P WAS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS WHICH ARE FUNCTIONING AT PAR WITH OTHER BANKS WOUL D NO MORE BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(4) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283(S.C) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS THUS HAD WRONGLY BEEN RELIED UPON BY HIM. THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS IN CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) AND NOT ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY TOWARDS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS PARKED WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACE BY THE LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT F BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY VS. ITO - 15(3)(4) (ITA NO. 5819/MUM/2014 DATED 17.03.2017 IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTEXT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E CO - OPERATIVE BANK TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IT WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CARRYING OUT A CONJOINT READING OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) R.W. SEC. 80P(4) HAD ADJUDICATED THE I SSUE BEFORE THEM. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS THUS WOULD BE OF NO ASSISTANCE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. STILL FURTHER THE RELIANCE PLACED BY TH E LD. D.R ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SMC BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAI DATTA CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (ITA NO. 2379/MUM/2015 DATED 15.01.2016 WOULD ALSO NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SAID MATTER THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THAT I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 6 AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. TOTAGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY ( 2017) 395 ITR 611 (KARN) THE HIGH COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). WE HOWEVER FIND THAT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF K. SUBRAMANIAN AND ANR. VS. SIEMENS INDIA LTD. AND ANR (1985) 156 ITR 11 (BOM) WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS THEN A VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAKEN AGAINST HIM. THUS TAKING SUPPO RT FROM THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIET Y (2017) 392 ITR 74 (KARN) AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (GUJ) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 9. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND CONCLUDE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.27 48 553/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE INVESTMENTS HELD WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US REMAINS THE SAME AS WAS THEREIN INVOLVED I N THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE THEREFORE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DECLINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.19 36 997/ - UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON ITS INVESTMENTS HELD WITH THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS HEREIN VACATED. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO S . 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 8. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 INSOFAR DELETING OF INTEREST UNDER RULE 234A 234B AND 234C BEING CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE GI VING EFFECT OF OUR AFORESAID OR DER IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. INSOFAR THE INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) AS HAS BEEN ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THE SAME BEING PREMATURE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05. 03.2021 SD/ - SD/ - RAJESH KUMAR RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI DATE: 05 .03.2021 PS: ROHIT I TA NO.2418/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 MEHERBAD CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS.ACIT - 19(2) 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR F BENCH ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI