Venugram Multipurpose Co-Op Credit Ltd., Belgaum v. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (2), Belgaum

ITA 402/PAN/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 40224114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAAAV1972F
Bench Panaji
Appeal Number ITA 402/PAN/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Venugram Multipurpose Co-Op Credit Ltd., Belgaum
Respondent Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (2), Belgaum
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 17-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 15-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 15-04-2014
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 16-12-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4 02 /PNJ/201 3 : (ASST. YEAR : 2010 - 11) V ENUGRAM MULTIPURPOSE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD S HANIWAR KHUT BELGAUM . (APPELLANT) PAN : AAAA V 1972F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1( 2 ) FK COMPLEX B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BELGAUM . (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S HRI P. DINESH A DV . REVENUE BY : S MT SONAL L. SONKAVDE LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15/04 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /04 /2014 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL THIS APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BELGAUM DT D . 7 .1 0 .2013 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE FURNISHED AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 2. T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A CO - OP. SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT . 3. T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A CO - OP. SOCIETY CARRYING BUSINESS OF BANKING THEREBY ERRED IN HOLDING TH A T THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WITH IN THE MEANING OF PART V OF BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 TO ROPE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P( 4) OF THE ACT TO DENY THE EXEMPTION. 2 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE APPELLANT IS NOT A CO - OP BANK NOT GOVERNED BY BANKING REGULATIONS ACT OR RBI ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY IS FULLY EXEMPTED U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11 24 117 / - AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THEREFORE NET TAXABLE INCOME WAS SHOWN TO BE NIL. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1 2 11 580 / - . THE AO WHILE DENYING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I ) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 THE LD. AR BEFORE US BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSION VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPE RATIVE SOCIETY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959. THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT OVERALL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGE HABITS OF SAVING ECONOMY IN EXPENDITURE AND HELPING EACH OTHER AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. FOR THIS OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE BYE - LAW S OF THE ASSESSEE FROM (I) TO ( XX ). THE ASSESSEE IS A CREDIT SOCIETY. HE CONTENDED THAT THE WORD CREDIT IS OF OUTMOST IMPORTANT TO DECIDE THE STATUS OF TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY BUT WHEN WE QUESTION THAT SECTION 80P DOES NOT TALK OF CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY HE COULD 3 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) NOT REPLY THERETO BUT RELIED ON BANKING REGULATIO N ACT FORGETTING THAT THE SECTION 80P ONLY USES THE WORD CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN - . THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIMITED TO ITS MEMBERS. THE PAID UP CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE NO DOUBT IS MORE THAN RS. 1 LACS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSU E IS DULY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. IN TAX APPEAL N OS. 442 OF 2013 443 OF 2013 AND 863 OF 2013. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TOWARD S THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. FOR THE PROPOSITION OF LAW BY REFERRING TO PARA 12 THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE LOAN TO IT S MEMBERS IT DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY GOVERNED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT NOR CAN THEY BE TREATED AS BANKING COMPANIES. THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE SOCIETY CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE BANKING ACTIVITIES AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 72/BANG/2013 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DIVYAJYOTHI CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. FOR THE A.Y 2009 - 10 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE BANKS AND NOT TO CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE PANAJI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JAYALAKSHMI MAHILA VIVIDODESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD. IN ITA NO. 1 TO 3/PNJ/2012 DT. 30.3.2012. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF PANAJI BENCH IN ITA NO. 229 & 230/PNJ/2013 IN THE CASE OF TARA RA NI MAHILA CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY VS ITO. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN ACIT VS PALHAWAS PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD 23 TAXMAN.COM 318 (DELHI) ITO VS JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD 24 TAXMAN.COM 127 (PUNE). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATT ANA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITHA DATED 5.2.2014 THIS DECISION RELATE TO AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 4 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) AND THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING HIS POWER U/S 263 WITHOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL FACT O F THE ASSESSEE BEING CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE THIS DECISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 2.2 THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK GIVEN UNDER EXPLANAT ION TO SEC. 80P(4) THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. SEC. 80P(4) PUTS AN EMBARGO W.E.F. 1.4.2007 THAT IF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NOS. 1003/HYD/2011 & 1004/HYD/2011 DT. 2.7.2012. 3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS AND THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AND CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BEFORE US. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2006 W.E.F. 1.4.2007. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF BOTH THE SECTIONS ARE RE - PRODUCED FOR OUR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER : - 80P. (1) WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A C O - OPERATIVE SOCIETY THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (2) THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED 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) IN THE CASE OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN (I) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR THE WH OLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES. 5 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) 80P(4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMAR Y CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB - SECTION (A) 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' AND 'PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY' SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 (10 OF 1949); (B) 'PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK' MEANS A SOCIETY HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A TALUK A AND THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE FOR LONG - TERM CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL A ND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 3.1 FROM THE PLAIN READING OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING OF BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENT ITLED FOR DEDUCTION ON WHOLE OF THE INCOME RELATING TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH BUSINESS. FROM THE READING OF SEC. 80P(4) IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS SECTION DENIES DEDUCTION TO A CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR PRIMARY C O - OPERATIVE AGRICULTUR AL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) WAS INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2006 W.E.F. 1.4.2007. THE EXPLANATION TO THE SECTION DEFINES THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN PART - V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. IF WE READ BOTH THE SECTIONS SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) AND SEC. 80P(4) TOGETHER WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) MANDATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P WILL NOT APPLY TO ANY CO - OPERATI VE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CRED IT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. AFTER THE INSERTION OF SEC. 6 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) 80P(4) THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) WERE NOT AMENDED RATHER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS CONTINUE D TO BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). THIS PRE - SUPPOSES THAT EVERY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THE EMBARGO PUT U/S 80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO A CO - OPERATIVE B ANK. IN OUR OPINION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CANNOT CARRY ON BUSINESS OF BANKING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS EVEN IF IT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IF WE READ THE PROVISIONS IN THE MANNER THAT EVERY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CAR RYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING EVEN FOR ITS MEMBERS IS REGARDED TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) WILL BECOME REDUNDANT. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U /S 80P(2)(A)(I) IT IS ESSENTIAL TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERAT IVE BANK THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION AS STIPULATED U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) BUT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THIS SEC TION NOWHERE STATES CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY EXCEPT MENTIO NED UNDER PROVISO 2 TO SECTION 80P WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR SUB - CLAUSE 6 OR 7. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I). 4. IN OUR OPINION SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) PROVIDES TWO TYPES OF ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY MUST BE ENGAGED TO BE E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SUB - CLAUSE (I). THESE TWO ACTIVITIES ARE NOT ALTERNATE S ONES BECAUSE THE SECTION ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON THE WHOLE OF PROFITS AND 7 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES. TH IS PRE - SUPPOSES THAT ELIGIBLE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CAN CARRY ON EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO BUSINESSES OR CAN CARRY BOTH THESE BUSINESSES FOR THE MEMBERS. IF THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRIES ON ONE OR BOTH OF THE ACTIVITIES IT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION. THESE TWO ACTIVITIES ARE (A) CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR (B) CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. BOTH THE ACTIVITIES MUST BE CARRIED ON BY T HE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR ITS MEMBERS. IF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THESE ACTIVITIES/FACILITIES FOR THE PERSONS OTHER THAN ITS MEMBERS THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IN OUR OPINION WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) ON THE INCOME WHICH IT DERIVES FROM CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES NOT RELATING TO ITS MEMBERS. THEREFORE WHERE A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND TO THE PUBLIC OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR TO THE PUBLIC THE INCOME WHICH RELATES TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WILL ONLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). THERE IS NO PROHIBITION U/S 80P NOT TO ALLOW D EDUCTION TO SUCH CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS RELATING TO ITS MEMBERS. 4.1 NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK OR NOT. CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS DEFINED IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT 1949 A S UNDER : - CO - OPERATIVE BANK MEANS A STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK A CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK: 5. FROM THE DEFINITION OF CO - OPERATIVE BANK IT IS APPARENT THAT CO - OPERATIVE BANK MEANS STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK A CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE 8 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) ASSESSEE IS A STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK OR CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE THEREFORE TO FIND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. 6. THE PRIMA RY CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 5 CLAUSE (CCV) OF BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 AS UNDER: - (CCV) PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK MEANS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY - (1) THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS TRANSACTION OF BANKING BUSINESS: (2) THE PAID - UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES OF WHICH ARE NOT LESS THAN ONE LAKH OF RUPEES: AND (3) THE BYE - LAWS OF WHICH DO NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER: PROVIDED THAT THIS SUB - CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE ADMISSION OF A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS A MEMBER BY REASON OF SUCH CO - OPERATIVE BANK SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF SUCH CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY OUT OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE 7. FROM THE AFORESAID DEFINITION IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS; FIRSTLY THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPLE BUSINESS TRANSACTED BY IT IS A BANKING BUSINESS SECONDLY THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RE SERVE OF WHICH ARE 1 LAKH OR MORE AND THIRDLY BY LAWS OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY DO NOT PERMIT ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER IT WILL BE REGARDED TO BE PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY DOES NOT FULFIL ANY OF T HE CONDITIONS IT CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE TO EXAMINE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE THREE CONDI TIONS. IN CASE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS IT CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) IN OUR OPINION WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT FALL WITH IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) IN RESPECT OF WHOLE OF THE INCOME WHICH THE 9 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) ASSESSEE DERIVES FROM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS M EMBERS. 8. WHETHER CONDITION NO. 1 IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE BYE - LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ARE ENUMERATED AS UNDER : - I. T O ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT OVERALL AND E CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGE HABITS OF SAVING ECONOMY IN EXPENDITURE AND HELPING EACH OTHER AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. II. UNDERTAKING PRODUCTION PURCHASE AND SALES OF HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES AND OTHER MATERIALS ALONG WITH MEMBERS . III . UNDERTAKING MARKETING OF MATERIALS BY TAKING THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS FROM SUPPLIERS . IV . TO UNDERTAKE PRINTING SCREEN PRINTING ADVERTISEMENT SERVICES AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES . V . .......................................... . X VI I . TO PURCHASE AND SELL THE RATION AND OTHER BASIC NECESSITY MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC . X VII I . TO UNDERTAKE SELLING WORKING AS MEDIATOR OR AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR BY THE ORGANIZATIONS RUN BY THE HELP OF THE GRANTS OF THE GOVERNM ENTS. XIX . TO UNDERTAKE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD GRAINS CLOTHES AND OTHER BASIC NECESSITIES EITHER IN RETAIL OR WHOLESALE TO THE HOSTELS RUN BY GRANTS OF GOVERNMENT OR SEMI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS. XX. TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. ON THE BASIS OF THESE OBJECTS WHETHER IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSACTION OF BANKING BUSINESS? BANKIN G BUSINESS HAS BEEN DEFINED U/S 5(B) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 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 WITHDRAWABLE BY CHEQUE DRAFT ORDER OR OTHERWISE . FROM THE SAID DEFINITION IT IS CLEAR THAT BANKING MEANS ACCEPTING DEPOSIT OF MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH IS REPAYABLE ON DEMAND OR OTHERWISE AND WITHDRAWAL OF THESE DEPOSITS BY CHEQUE DRAFT ORDER OR OTHERWISE AND T HESE 10 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) DEPOSITS ARE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OR INVESTMENT. THESE DEPOSITS MUST BE ACCEPTED FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ONLY FROM THE MEMBERS. THESE DEPOSITS MUST BE REPAYABLE ON DEMAND OR OTHERWISE AND COULD BE WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPOSITOR BY CHEQUE DR AFT OR OTHERWISE. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS OF MONEY NOT ONLY FROM THE MEMBERS BUT ALSO FROM THE GENER AL PUBLIC WHO ARE NON - MEMBERS. THIS FACT IS CLEAR AS PER THE REMAND REPORT OF A.O DATED 04.09 .2013 BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS FROM THE FOLLOWING : - THUS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE SOCIETY ACCEPT S DEPOSIT S FROM NON - MEMBERS . THE DEPOSITS SO ACCEPTED ARE USED BY THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR LENDING OR INVESTMENT. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY HIS COUNSEL IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE US . EVEN OUT OF THE DEPOSITS SO RECEIVED THE LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS AS ENUMERAT ED ABOVE. THUS IN OUR OPINION CONDITION NO. 1 STANDS SATISFIED AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS NOT CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AS IT WAS ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM THE PERSONS WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS. T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO T OOK THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED BANKING LICENCE. IN OUR OPINION IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHOULD HAVE A BANKING LICENCE AS PER THE DEFINITION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS . IF LICENCE IS N OT OBTAINED IT MAY BE AN ILLEGAL BANKING BUSINESS UNDER THE OTHER STATUTE . WHAT WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS CARRYING ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS A BANKING BUSINESS OR NOT. THE INCOME TAX IN OUR OPINION IS NOT CONCERNED WHETHER THE BANKING B USINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. THE INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED U/S 14 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE SAME HEAD EVEN IF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IS ILLEGAL. 11 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) SO FAR AS THE SECOND CONDITION IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN RS. 1 LAC. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE SECOND CONDITION. SO FAR AS THE THIRD CONDITION IS CONCERNED WE NOTED THAT SEC. 16 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 PERMITS ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16 ARE LAID DOWN AS UNDER : 16. PERSONS WHO MAY BECOME MEMBERS - [(1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17 NO PERSON SHALL BE ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING NAMELY: -- [(A) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO NEEDS THE SERVICES OF SUCH CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [AND IS RESIDING IN THE AREA OF THE OPERATION OF THE SOCIETY] AND IS COMPETENT TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UNDER THE CONTRACT ACT 1872 (CENTRAL ACT IX OF 1872);] [(A - 1) A DEPOSITOR;] (B) ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY; (C) THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; (D) THE L IFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND SUCH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT; (E) A FIRM A COMPANY OR ANY OTHER BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE INCLUDING A SO CIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960 (KARNATAKA ACT 17 OF 1960); (F) A MARKET COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT 1966 (KARNATAKA ACT 27 OF 1966); (G) A LOCAL AUTHORITY. EXPLANATION. - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE LOCAL AUTHORITY MEANS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TOWN PANCHAYAT ZILLA PANCHAYAT TALUK PANCHAYAT OR GRAMA PANCHAYAT CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE] (2) NO CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE REFUSE ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP TO ANY PERSON DULY QUALIFIED THEREFOR E UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS [ACT RULES AND BYE - LAWS] THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF SEC. 16 MANDATES ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE WORD USED IN SEC. 16(1) IS SHALL. THIS FACT IS CLARIFIED FURTHER BY SUB - SECTION (2) AS RE - PRODUCED HEREINABOVE THAT NO CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL REFUS E ADMISSION TO THE MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASON TO ANY PERSON WHO IS QUALIFIED TO BECOME MEMBER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT RULES AND BYE - LAWS. THIS 12 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) CLEARLY PROVES THAT IN CASE THE RULES AND BYE - LAWS OF THE OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVI DES OTHERWISE THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY MAY NOT BE ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE PERSON AS PER SUB - SECTION (2) MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR BECOMING MEMBER NOT ONLY U/S 16(1) BUT ALSO AS PER THE RULES AND BYE - LAWS OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SO CIETY. WE CANNOT READ SUB - SECTION (2) IN THE MANNER THAT THE RULES AND BYE - LAWS CANNOT PERMIT THE ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. HAD THAT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE THEY WOULD HAVE NOT USE D THE WORDS THIS ACT RULES AND BYE - LAWS IN SUB - SECTION (2). 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BYE - LAWS WHICH CONTAINS THE MEMBERSHIP WHICH IS BYE - LAWS NO. 5 . IT STATES AS UNDER : - 5 . MEMBERSHIP : A NY PERSON INCLUDING PERSONS EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT AND SEMI - GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETIES AND WHO IS NORMALLY RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA OF OPERATION OF THE SOCIETY AND WHO GENUINELY NEED THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE SOCIETY AND COMPETENT TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UNDER SECT ION 11 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 IS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME THE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. SECTION 11 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 STATES THAT EVERY PERSON IS COMPETENT TO CONTRACT WHO IS OF THE AGE OF MAJORITY ACCORDING TO THE LAW TO WHICH HE IS SUBJ ECT AND WHO IS SOUND MIND AND IS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM CONT RACTING BY ANY LAW TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT. THIS CONDITION CAN BE APPLIED ONLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL NOT TO A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY . FROM THIS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE BYE - LAWS OF SOCIETY DO NOT PERMIT THE ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS MEMBER. THUS THE THIRD CONDITION FOR BECOMING PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS ALSO COMPLIED WITH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY BECOMES A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION (A) OF SECTION 80P(4) IT HAS TO BE REGARDED AS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND IS HIT BY SECTION 80P(4). 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. ADDL. CIT ( SUPRA ). WE NOTED THAT THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 13 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) IN THIS DECISION UNDER PARA 23 THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON BANKING BUSIN ESS AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT ACTS LIKE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THE SOCIETY IS GOVERNED BY THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT. THEREFORE THE SOCIETY BEING A CO - OPERATIVE BANK PROVIDING BANKING FACILITIES TO MEMBERS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8 0P(2)(A)(I) AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SUB - SECTION (4) TO SECTION 80P. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DIVYAJ YOTHI CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ( SUPRA ) IN ITA NO. 72/BANG/2013. IN THIS CASE WE NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT CIRCLE 3(1) BANGALORE VS. M/S. BANGALORE CO MMERCIAL TRANSPORT CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. IN ITA NO. 1069/BANG/2010 HOLDING THAT SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY A AND NOT TO CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WITH DUE REGARDS TO THE BENCH WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY TERM C REDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OR U/S 80P(4) THEREFORE THIS DECISION CANNOT ASSIST US. WE NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. IN TAX APPEALS NO. 442 OF 2013 443 OF 2013 AND 863 OF 2013 ( SUPRA ) VIDE ORDER DT. 15.1.2014 TOOK THE VIEW THAT SEC. 80P(4) WILL NOT APPLY TO A SOCIETY WHICH IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IN THE CASE OF VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ( SUPRA) WE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER RELATED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR ISSUING A CIRCULAR. THE ISSUE DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). WHILE DEALING WITH TH IS ISSUE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UNDER PARA 12 OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 12. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT THE BANKING INSTITUTIONS COMING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. THEY ARE THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT AND AS SUCH THEY ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. CONSEQUENTLY THE STATE 14 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) GOVERNMENT HAS CONTROL OVER THEM TO THE EXTENT THE ACT PERMITS. MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONERS ARE TO FINANCE ITS MEMBERS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ITS MEMBERS THEY BOR ROW MONEY FROM THE FINANCING AGENCIES AND REPAY THE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS - THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN QUESTION - ARE REQUIRED TO ADVANCE LOANS TO THEIR MEMBERS THEY DO NOT CEASE TO BE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVERNED BY THE ACT NOR CAN THEY BE TREATED AS BANKING COMPANIES. IT IS ALSO NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THESE ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONERS AMOUNT TO BANKING AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 INASMUCH AS THESE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED FOR THE PUR POSE OF DOING BANKING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 5(B) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. THIS DECISION IN OUR OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFORE US BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH S ARE APPLICABLE TO A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IF IT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JAYALAKSHMI MAHILA VIVIDO DESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD. I N ITA NO. 1 TO 3/PNJ/2012 DT. 30.3.2012 ( SUPRA) FOR WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE AUTHOR. WHILE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE AFTER ANALYSING THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER PARA 12 OF ITS ORDER THIS TRI BUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : - 12. FROM THE AFORESAID OBJECTS IT IS APPARENT THAT NONE OF THE AIMS AND OBJECTS ALLOWS THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS OF MONEY FROM PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING OR INVESTMENT. IN OUR OPINION UNTIL AND UNLESS THAT CONDITION IS SATISFIED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PRIME OBJECT OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS BANKING BUSINESS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE FIRST CONDITION AS LAID DOWN IN THE DEFINITION AS GIVEN U/S. 5(CCV) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1959 FOR BECOMING PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK AND IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF IT CANNOT BE A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS DEFINED UNDER PART V OF THE BANKING REGULAT ION ACT 1949. ACCORDINGLY IN OUR OPINION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P (4) READ WITH EXPLANATION THERE UNDER WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). W E ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF ACIT VS PALHAWAS PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD 23 TAXMAN.COM 318 (DELHI). SECTION 15 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) 80P(4) CLEARLY EXCLUDES PRIMARY AGRI CULTURE CREDIT SOCIETY FROM ITS DOMAIN. THEREFORE THIS DECISION WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAD SANSTHA LTD 24 TAXMAN.COM 127 PUNE. THIS WE HAVE ALREA DY STATED THAT SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) NOWHERE TALKS OF CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY AND THEREFORE THE DISTINCTION MADE UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT CANNOT BE IMPORTED U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). THIS DECISION IN OUR OPINION WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF TARA RA NI MAHILA CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD TO WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE AUTHOR SIMILAR FINDING AS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THIS ARE GIVEN IN THAT CASE ALSO. THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SRI BILU RU GURUBASAVA PATTANA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITHA DATED 5.2.2014 RELATES TO AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 AND THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING HIS POWER U/S 263 WITHOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL F ACT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE. 11. WE THEREFORE IN VIEW OF OUR AFORESAID DISCUSSION HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE REGARDED TO BE A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS ALL THE THREE BASIC CONDITIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH THEREFORE IT IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(4) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) TO THE ASSESSEE. 12 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 13 . ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 .0 4 .2014. SD/ - SD/ - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 17 .04 .2014 *A* 16 ITA NO. 402/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR: 2010 - 11) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT PANAJI GOA