PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 6, Pune, dated 01.06.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 1960 and is stated to be engaged in   / Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019   / Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2019 ITA No.1516/PUN/2018 members. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on

29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.26,00,261/- u/s 80P of the. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the vide order dt.29.12.2017 and the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the was denied to the assessee and the total income was thus determined at Rs.26,00,261/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.01.06.2018 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-6/ITO Wd.10(5)/10322/2017-18) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Hon AO holding that the appellant assesses society is a Co. Op. Bank and denying the deduction u/s 80P (2)(i) by applying the provisions of sec 80P (4) ignoring the fact that. a. The appellant Society is Registered under the Co-Op societies Act to provide credit facilities to its members and not allowed to enter into any other business. b. The appellant assesses is not engaged in the business of "Banking" but it is engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. However in Banking activities, multiple services i.e. providing facilities like RTGS, NEFT, money transfer facilities, Cheques, DDS, Bank Guarantee, Letter of Credits, Solvency certificates etc. are provided The appellant assesses does not provide any of such services. c. The appellant society does not have the required license from RBI to operate as a Bank. d. As per the definition of Banking as per Banking Regulation Act 1949, "Banking Means the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposit of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawal by Cheques, drafts, order or otherwise but the appellant assesses does not provide facilities and also is not a members of the clearing house. The appellant society urge to allow deduction u/s 80D(2) (i).

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon. SC in the case of Citizen Co. Op society in civil appeal no 10245/2017 to the case of ITA No.1516/PUN/2018 appellant society as the facts in that case differ from the facts in appellants case i.e. i. The citizen co op society is a multistate co op society registered under multistate co op societies Act, 2002 and as per module bye laws the society can enter in to number of business verticals at the same point of time and as such societies are "multipurpose" societies doing the business of banking business, departmental stores, rent cabs etc. whereas the appellant society is registered under Maharashtra Societies Act to provide credit facilities to its members and not allowed to enter into any other business activity. As per Maharastra Societies Act the applicant society has to specify its business such "Credit facility" Departmental stores, Labour societies etc. ii. The citizen co-operative society established under state law in 1997 was registered under multistate law in 2005 as its activities increased manifold over the period as it aimed at multiplying its business beyond its membership and expansion of business and not only providing credit facilities to its members. Whereas the appellant society, as per license issued by Registrar has jurisdiction of Junnar Taluka only. It provide credit facilities to its members out of deposits received from members and has not been doing any other business. The investments by way of deposits with other co-op Bank, are being made out of excess funds lying idle with the society.

3. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that though assessee has raised various grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the.

4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had invested surplus funds with Co-operative Society and received interest of such investments amounting to Rs.43,82,438/-. AO was of the view that as per the provisions of Sec.80P(2)(d), the assessee Society has to invest the surplus funds with Co-operative Society and not with Co-operative Bank. He noted that since the assessee had invested surplus funds with PDDC i.e., Co-operative Bank and not with Co-operative Society, therefore assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the. He accordingly denied the claim of deduction of Rs.26,00,261/- u/s 80P of the. Aggrieved by the order of AO, ITA No.1516/PUN/2018 assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us.

5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that the main reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P was that since the assessee has deposited surplus funds with Co-operative Credit Society, it is not eligible for deduction. He submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on identical issue in the case of ITO Vs. Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (ITA No.598/PN/2011 order dt.26.06.2012) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. He therefore submitted that following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (supra), the issue be decided in assessees favour. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the. We find that AO while denying the claim of assessee had held the assessee can be treated as a Co- operative Bank looking at the nature of activities of the assessee and since Co-operative Banks are not eligible for deduction u/s 80P on the amount invested in banks other than those mentioned u/s 80P(2)(d) of ITA No.1516/PUN/2018 the, he denied the claim of deduction. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the identical issue in the case of Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (supra) has decided the issue in assessees favour by noting as under : 8. It is pertinent to note here that the definition of the Co-operative Credit Society is given in Clause (ccii) of Sec. 5 which reads as under : co- operative credit society 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;

9. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 defines of 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 but its identity is kept separate by way of independent definition in view of Clause (ccii) of Sec. 5 of the Banking Regulation Act which defines what is meaning of Credit Co-operative Society. On plain reading of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, nowhere it is suggested that the term Co-operative Bank also includes Co- Operative Credit Society also. Meaning of any term or expression is to be ascertained in the context of provisions of referred Act. As per Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 80P of the I. T. Act, Co-operative Bank means State Co- operative Bank, a Central Co-operative Bank and a Primary Co-operative Bank. It is seen that Cooperative Bank is deprived of the benefit of the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the. As per the interpretation given by the AO, assessee Co-Operative Credit Society partakes the character of the Primary Co-operative Bank and as the Primary Co-operative Bank is included in the definition of the Cooperative Bank and hence, is not entitled to the benefits of Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) of I. T. Act. In our opinion, this is not the correct interpretation. It is well settled principle in the interpretation of the taxing provisions that the same are to be strictly construed and there is n room for any intendment. There is no presumption as to tax.Nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied. One has to fairly look into language used by the Parliament. The Parliament has adopted the definition of the Co-operative Bank by refering the same as given in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is called Legislation by reference and we have to give the strict interpretation while interpreting the effect of Sub-sec. (4) to Sec. 80 P. In our opinion, Co-operative Credit Society is distinct and separate from the Co-operative Bank nor it can be said as a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Hence, the assesseeee being a Co-operative Credit Society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the. We accordingly uphold the order of the Ld CIT(A).

7. Before us, it is assessees contention that the facts in the year under consideration are similar to the case of Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (supra). The aforesaid contention of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue. Revenue has also not ITA No.1516/PUN/2018 placed any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (supra) in A.Y. 2007-08 has been set aside by higher Judicial Forum. We therefore, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jankalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanshta Ltd., (supra) and following the same reasoning hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs.26,00,261/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the in respect of the amount invested in PDCC i.e., Co-operative Bank. Thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed.

8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 24 th day of May, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)   / JUDICIAL MEMBER  / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune;  Dated : 24 th May, 2019. Yamini # $& (/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.  / The Appellant 2.  / The Respondent 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-6, Pune. Pr. CIT 5, Pune. " %%&,  &, + / DR, ITAT, SMC Pune; . / Guard file. / BY ORDER // True Copy // 01 % & / Sr. Private Secretary  & , / ITAT, Pune.