SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

The appeal preferred by the assessee did not find favour with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in this Page 3 of 25

Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the out set submitted that issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of assessee, by the judgment of the Tribunal, as the assessee is a registered co-operative society and engaged in supply of milk produced by the various members and supplied the milk to the Federal Co-operative Society. The assessee, is a primary co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and member of Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation (GMMF). The Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation (GMMF) is the supreme body controlling supply of milk in the state of Gujarat. The assessee functions as per the directions and instructions given by the Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation (GMMF). The assessee is engaged in supply of milk to the Federal Co- operative Society and the assessee has shown income from such activities in the profit and loss account and claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the I.T. Act.The assessee is carrying out various activities, which are as follows:

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, in assessee`s own case, by the judgement of the jurisdictional ITAT Rajkot, 111 taxmann.com69 ( Rajkot-trib). The Tribunal has allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act to the assessee, by giving the findings at para no. 6.1 to 6.3. The Tribunal further placed reliance on CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd (SC) 358 ITR 295 and allowed the deduction thereby following the principle of consistency. Since assessee has been claiming the deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act, consistently for the last several assessment years and there was no disallowance even in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act Page 5 of 25

In Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321/60Taxman 248 (SC) this Court did not think it appropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same"fundamental aspect" permeates in different assessment years. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court referred to an interesting passage from Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation, 1926 AC 155 (PC) wherein it was said: "Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted, litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. It is a principle of law that this cannot be permitted and there is abundant authority reiterating that principle. Thirdly, the same principle, namely, that of setting to rest rights of litigants, applies to the case where a point, fundamental to the decision, taken or assumed by the plaintiff and traversable by the defendant, has not been traversed. In that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken." 6.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly we reverse the order of the authorities below. Thus the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee as per the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We have heard both the parties. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities, however, learned DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the assessing officer. We have already noted that the assessee is engaged in supply of milk to the Federal Co-operative Society and the assessee has shown income from such activities in the profit and loss account.The assessee has also earned interest income from the investment in Schedule and co- operative bank. The interest income is also shown in the profit and loss account and net profit from the activities from the supply of milk is shown at Rs. 1,18,29,584/- .The assessee has shown the net profit of Rs. 1,18,29,584/- under the head income from business and profession and after adjustments of depreciation, the net income of Rs. 92,40,586/- has been shown. The net business income is claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act, in the return filed by the assessee. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the deduction of interest is disallowed and the net interest income of Rs. 34,79,487/- has been treated as income from other sources and the same is treated separately. The assessing officer while computing the total income has considered the total income as per Profit & Loss account and also further addition is made under the head "income from other sources" as interest income of Rs. 34,79,487/-.The interest income is already forming part of the business income and therefore while computing the total income, the interest income should be reduced from the net-profit item and then it should be shown under the head "income from other sources". The computation of income can be worked out as under:

In the result, ground No.3, raised by the assessee, is allowed.

Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised by the assessee, relate to disallowance of deduction of interest earned from Co-operative Bank Rs. 1,17,82,065/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of I.T. Act, and disallowance of the deduction of Dividend Income of Rs. 47,70,000/- u/s 80P(2)(d) earned from the investment in Co-operative Society.

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction of interest earned from Co-operative Bank Rs. 1,17,82,065/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of I.T. Act, 1961. During the year under consideration, the assessee has made deposits with various Nationalized. Private Commercial banks and Co-operative banks and earned interest income.The interest earned from the deposits with various co-operative banks are as under:

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

We have considered submissions of both the parties, and we note that ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the judgement of the ITAT Page 11 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer Rajkot, vide order dated 31/07/2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahakari Mandli, Ltd, in for the assessment year 2018-19 wherein it was held that interest received on fixed deposit from co-operative bank, and dividend received are allowable as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The detailed findings of the Tribunal is reproduced below:

During the course of hearing, ld Counsel for the assessee, clarified the Bench that assessee, by mistake, wrongly submitted, in the written submission, before the ld. PCIT, as if, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Act, in respect of amount ofRs.18,41,436/- and Rs.52,350/-, in fact, the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs.18,41,436/- and amounting toRs.52,350/-, respectively, as stated above. Thus, we note that ld. PCIT has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, mainly on the amount of Rs.Rs.18,41,436/-and Rs.52,350/-, as narrated above, andld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to examine the dividend income, if the dividend income is earned by the assessee from Co-operative Bank. Therefore, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to disallow the interest and dividend income earned from Co-operative Bank, which, as per ld PCIT, are not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

We note that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine investments, advances, loans, unsecured loans, deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The findings of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act,are reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:

Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued on 22.09.2019 and thereafter notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued.

In response to the notices issued, the assessee society has furnished all the relevant details called for. The same has been perused carefully and found to be in order.

In view of the above facts of the case and after considering the details furnished, the total income returned by the assessee is accepted.”

However, we do not agree with the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, to the effect that the assessing officer has examined the issue raised by the ld PCIT, by calling the details from the assessee, and has taken the plausible view. We note that just to call the details by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act and in response to that notice submission made by the assessee and assessing officer, having examined the details filed by the assessee, took the plausible view, is not sufficient. Over and above, such exercise narrated above, the order passed by the assessing officer, should be sustainable in the eye of law.

Hence, we have to examine, whether order passed by the assessing officer, in the assessee’s case under consideration is sustainable in the eye law.Therefore, we find merit in the submissions of the ld. D.R. for the Revenue to the effect that by way of issuing notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and reply of the assessee against the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, and then examination by the assessing and taking the plausible view, is not sufficient. The ld. D.R. for the Revenue stated that in the assessee’s case under consideration, assessing officer cannot take a plausible view specially when there is a judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 602 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that interest received from co- operative banks and other banks are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reason being, the assessing officer ignored the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat,in the case of Katlary Karyana (Supra). Therefore, ld. D.R. stated that the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence the ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction as per clause (d) of explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act.Therefore, as per ld. DR. for the Revenue the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We note that arguments advanced by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue carries weight and he has rightly stated that order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We also agree that during the assessment proceedings just to call the details by issuing notice Page 17 of Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer u/s. 142(1) of the Act and in response to that submission of the details by the assessee and then examining the same by assessing officer(AO) and having examined the same, assessing officer takes plausible view, is not sufficient.However, that plausible view should be sustainable in the eyes of law, as there is direct judgement on the issue under consideration by the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Katlary Karyana (Supra).

Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let us examine the issue under consideration. We agree with the ld. D.R. for the Revenue that just to collect the details during the assessment proceedings by issuing notice 142(1) of the Act, and furnishing of the details by the assessee, in response to that notice, and then after examination of the issue by AO and then to take a plausible view, by assessing officer is not sufficient, as we have noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malavar Industries Ltd. (supra) has clearly pointed out that the view taken by the assessing officer, should be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in these circumstances, we have to examine whether it was necessary for the assessing officer to accept the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court has noted that interest from Co-operative banks and other banks are not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Since it is the judgement of the Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat, therefore, assessing officer should not take a Page 18 of Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer plausible view specially when there is a judgment of jurisdictional High Court.Therefore, we have to examine whether judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra),is applicable to the assessee’s case under consideration or not.

We find that in section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961, there is no special exclusion that interest received from co-operative bank is not eligible for deduction. We have noted that definition of “co-operative society” as mentioned in section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not make any exclusion about co-operative bank. We note that in order to become a co-operative bank, the first condition is that it should be a co- operative society. Therefore, a co-operative society, later on decides to take license from the Reserve Bank of India to do banking business wherein the Co-operative society may lend the money and borrow the money, and for that purpose, the co-operative society has to take a license from the Reserve Bank of India and after taking license from the Reserve Bank of India said Co-operative society, becomes a co-operative bank also, which wasfirst a co-operative society. We also find that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is in the context of a specific definition mentioned in section 194A of the Act, therefore, the judgement delivered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra), is in a different context. Besides the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra) is in the context of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act wherein the Hon’ble Court has examined whether income has escaped assessment or not. Hence, this judgment is not binding precedent on the assessee where there are other direct judgments of the Hon’blejurisdictionalGujarat High Court on the ‘issue’ under consideration, which we are going to discuss in the subsequent paragraphs of this order.

We note that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. In Tax Appeal No.473 of 2014 dated 16-06-2014 (Guj HC) held that interest received from the co-operative bank is allowable as a deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act.We also find that there is another judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 421 ITR 134 (Guj HC) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that interest received from co-operative bank is allowable deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the above judgments i.e. in case of Sabarkantha District Co- operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court clearly held that interest received from Co-operative banks, are allowable as a deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. These two old judgments were not distinguished by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra) i.e. the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat did not overrule and did not distinguish and reject the earlier judgments delivered by it in case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and Surat VankarSahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), in the case of the latest judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of KatlaryKarayana (supra). Therefore, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of KatlaryKarayana (supra) has not overruled the ratio decided by it in the earlier judgments namely; (i)Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra).

We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT 2016 389 ITR 578 (Guj. HC) has also held that any income by way of interest derived by a Co-operative society from its investment with any other Co-operative bank would be deductible u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

We also find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has recently modified the judgement delivered by it in Katlary Karayana (supra) on 26th April, 2024 by removing error in the judgment of Katlary Karayana (supra). The ld DR for the Revenue, informed the Bench that Hon`ble High Court has only removed the word “co-operative” from the reproduction of reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Hence it does not impact on the ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Court. Learned Counsel for the assessee, has also argued before the Bench and submitted written submission that there is no material modification done by the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra).

Therefore, we find that the assessing officer has taken the plausible view which is sustainable in the eyes of law i.e. the view taken by the assessing officer is not against the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra). Because, the assessing officer has taken the plausible view based on the old judgements of the jurisdictional, Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat, namely; (i) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) and the ratio of these old judgments namely; (i) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and, (ii) Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable to the assessee under consideration, as these judgements never distinguished and never overruled by constituting a larger Bench by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court.Hence, we find that the assessing officer has definitely taken a plausible view after examination of the issue under consideration which cannot be subject to revision by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act because the view taken by the assessing officer is sustainable in law. Therefore, the argument advanced by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue, to the effect that assessing officer has failed to make compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra), is not acceptable, as the assessing officer, has taken the view which is sustainable in the eye of law, based on the old judgements of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, which are direct judgements on the issue under consideration, hence, there is no violation of judicial discipline by the assessing officer.

Now, we have to deal other arguments of the ld. D.R. for the revenue one by one, are as follows: (i) The ld. D.R. for the Revenue argued that recently the Jurisdictional Tribunal, Rajkot in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali vs. PCIT, in for assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 5th April, 2014 wherein the Jurisdictional Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot has considered the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court Page 20 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) and adjudicate the issue in favour of the assessee. In this context, we state that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra), no doubt, it is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, however, we note that it is not a speaking order. We find that the Co- ordinate Bench, in Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) did not narrate the facts properly and the facts narrated in Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) are not similar to the facts as that of the assessee under consideration. We also find that in the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra), there was no assistance from the A.R. of the assessee, as this order was heard by the Co-ordinate Bench ex parte and there is no representation by the A.R. of the assessee, therefore, the Bench was not informed about the correct ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra). The adjudication was done by the Co-ordinate Bench, based on written submission of assessee. Therefore, the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Lodhika Seva Sahakari Mandali (supra) is distinguishable on these facts, hence we do not accept the ratio laid down in the said decision. (ii) The second argument made by Ld. CIT-DR that one has to follow the judicial discipline and judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court should be given importance and it should be followed invariably, for that, the ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd.(1994) 206 ITR 727. In this context, we state that assessing officer has thoroughly followed the judicial discipline, as we have explained above that the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) does not apply to the assessee under consideration and therefore the view taken by the assessing officer is plausible view and sustainable in law.Therefore, in fact, the assessing officer has followed the judicial discipline as mentioned in the judgement of Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. (supra), therefore, the plea raised by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue is hereby rejected. (iii) The third argument advanced by Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue is that assessing officer, no doubt, issued the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to conduct inquiry and assessee has submitted the reply in response to that notice, however, the assessing officer has not applied his mind that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not available in respect of interest received from co-operative bank. In this context, we state that assessing officer after taking the details and evidences from the assessee, has examined thoroughly and taken a plausible view that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act is available to the assessee under consideration in view of the old decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), as these judgments were not overruled by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by constituting larger Bench and not distinguished in the latest judgment in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra). (iv) The fourth argument of Ld. CIT-DR is that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., 108 Taxman 282 (SC) which clearly states that co-operative banks are not species of genus of co-operative society. In this context, we note that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Page 21 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer Society Ltd(supra) is in the context of where the assessee retained sale proceeds of members whose produce was marketed by it and since funds created by such retention were not required immediately for business purpose, it invested same in specified securities and earned interest thereon. Therefore, interest earned by assessee would come in category of 'Income from other sources' and taxable under section 56 of the Act and would not qualify for deduction as business income under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the above judgement, of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd (supra) does not relate to section 80P (2) (d) of the Act, rather it relates to section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, hence, does not apply to the assessee under consideration.Therefore,we find that the above decision in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Ltd(supra) is in the context of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and is distinguishable and has been distinguished by lower courts in many judgements which are reproduced below: (a) Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141 (Kerala HC) (b) Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karnataka HC) (c) Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 728 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana HC) (d) State Bank of India vs Commissioner of Income-tax (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj. HC); (e) The Uttar Gujarat Uma Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. in 1671/A/2018 dated 28-02-2019 (Ahmedabad Trib.) (v) The fifth argument advanced by Ld. CIT-DR, is that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot, (Tribunal) has not considered the ratio of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Katlery Karyana (supra), in the following recent judgments of ITAT, Rajkot, which are reproduced below: (i) Kutch District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., 159 taxmann.com 347, order dated 29.01.2024 (ii) Rajkot Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited, in order dated 09.208.2023 (iii) Shree Keshav Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., in order dated 31.05.2022 The ld DR pointed out that in accordance with the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, dated 15/09/2008, (2008) 173 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein amongst others, it was held that non-adherence to orders of Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act.In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot, in the above decisions, has clearly considered the oldjudgments rendered by the Hon’ble Page 22 of Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer Jurisdictional, Gujarat High Court, namely, (i) Surat Vandar Sahakari Sangh Ltd(Supra) and (ii) Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. (supra), these two old judgements, were not overruled and distinguished by the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in the latest judgement of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra), therefore, ratio of these two old judgements are equally applicable to the assessee under consideration. Moreover, the latest judgement of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Katlary Karayana (supra) is in the context of section 194A of the Act and section 147 of the Act, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has examined whether income has escaped assessment or not. Therefore, we note that above decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, are speaking and reasoned decisions and hence, do not require rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, as judicial discipline has been observed in these above decisions, by following the old jurisdictional, Gujarat High Court judgements(supra), which are direct on the issue under consideration, hence we reject the plea taken by ld DR for the revenue.

We also state that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Banglore and Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur, have also followed the old judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, as noted above, and held that interest received from Cooperative Banks are allowable deduction under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act: (i) Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., in to 379/Bang/2023, dated 18.07.2023 (ii) Jhunjhunu KaryaVikryaSahakari Samiti Ltd., We also note that the other Hon’ble High Courts, in the following cases, have upheld the same view, as the view taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the old Judgments (supra), that interest received from Cooperative Banks are allowable deduction under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act: (i) Totagars Co-operative Sale, 79 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka) (ii) Thorapadi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., 156 taxmann.com 419 (Mad.) 38. Final word: Thus, we note that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tatgars Society Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the assessee under consideration, as this judgment is in the context of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We find that the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd, (supra) has taken a plausible view, which is sustainable in the eye, law. The assessing officer has not considered the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Katlary Karayana (supra), as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra)is not applicable to the assessee, under consideration and hence there is no violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Page 23 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer Saurastra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra).We are of the view that the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katlary Karayana(supra), is not binding on the assessing officer, as we have stated that this judgement is in different context of section 194A of the Act and specially it is in the context of income escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, the ratio of the judgement does not apply to the assessee, under consideration. So far as the judicial discipline is concerned, there is no violation of the judicial discipline, by the assessing officer. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we state that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer made enough inquiry by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and in response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted details, documents and explanation before the assessing officer and the assessing officer having examined the details and documents of the assessee, has taken the plausible view, which is sustainable in the eyes of law, as we have explained above. The Ld. PCIT while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, also referred Clause (d) of Explanation – 2 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is stated that if the order has not been passed by the Assessing Officer in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee and rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of assessee or any other person.However, as we have explained above that the said judgment delivered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlery Karayana (supra), does not apply to the assessee under consideration, hence Clause (d) of Explanation – 2 of Section 263 of the Act, does not apply to the assessee. Therefore, considering these facts, the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view which is sustainable in the eye of law, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra).Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances, narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is ‘’null’’ in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the Principal CIT dated 10.03.2023, being ab initio void.39. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

Therefore, we note that 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 is allowed as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On the contrary, despite of these facts, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Respectfully following the binding precedent, of ITAT Rajkot, vide, order dated 31/07/2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahakari Mandli, Ltd, in ITA No.

In the combined result, appeal find by the assessee is allowed, as indicated above.