ORAL ORDER
(PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R SHAH)
1.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) dated 27.09.2013 passed in ITA No. 2613.AHD/2012 for AY 2009-10, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with following proposed substantially question of law.
“A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,41,90,816/- u/s 80IB of the Act?
B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,42,19,515/- u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act?”
2.0 Heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the Revenue and perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as order passed by the CIT(A) as well as assessment order.
3.0 Now, so far as proposed question A i.e order passed by the learned Tribunal upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,42,19,515/- u/s. 80IB of the Act is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union rendered in ITA No. 3599.AHD/2009 for AY 2005-06 wherein on identical facts it was held that even if no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act cannot be denied. It is reported that decision of the Tribunal in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (supra) has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.1.2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1813 of 2010. In view of the above, when the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (supra) upon which, the learned Tribunal has relied upon, has been confirmed by this Court. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, proposed question A is answered against the Revenue.
4.0 Now, so far as proposed question no. B i.e whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,42,19,515/- under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act is concerned, it is required to be noted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act on the interest earned on the fixed deposit with Cooperative Bank and the Societies and it has been found that as such the income was received from the investment in Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Bank. Considering Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act when the only requirement was that the income should be received from investment in Cooperative Societies and the Cooperative Bank which in the present case has been fulfilled, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,42,19,515/- under Section 80(P(2)(d) of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, proposed question B is also answered against the revenue.
5.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Tax Appeal fail and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.