ORDER

Per Bench :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), Trivandrum dated 03.09.2019.

The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016.

2. Sri. O.D.Sivadas, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Sri.B.Sajjive, Senior Departmental Representative represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3. This appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 93 days, for which the assessee has filed condonation petition, wherein it is mentioned that the assessee was unaware of what has to be done after receipt of the order of the CIT(A) and had approached the assessee’s Chartered Accountant in the first week of December. It is mentioned that later on inquiry with the Chartered Accountant, the assessee was informed that it would be better to entrust the filing of appeal to another Council and with the tracing of the Council and the preparation of the appeal, delay had occurred. The Revenue has seriously objected to the delay. On perusal of the Affidavit filed by the Secretary of the assessee-cooperative bank shows that the assessee has gone on the advise of the Chartered Accountant. The facts mentioned in the Affidavit have not been shown to be false or wrong. This being so, we feel that the assessee has shown bonafides and has given reasonable explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal. Consequently, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed of on merits.

4. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order in denying the claim of deduction u/ s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follow:

The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. For the assessment year under consideration, return of income was filed after claiming deduction u/ s 80P of the I.T.Act. The assessment order was passed for assessment year under consideration, wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/ s 80P of the I.T.Act. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction u/ s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act was that the assessee was essentially doing the business of banking, and therefore, in view of insertion of section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act with effect from 01.04.2007, the assessee will not be entitled to deduction u/ s 80P of the I.T.Act.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of deduction u/ s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority for all the assessment year under consideration. The CIT(A) placing reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2019) 414 ITR 67 (Ker.) (FB) (HC)] held that the Assessing Officer had made elaborate findings and has come to a factual finding that agricultural credit provided by the assessee is only minuscule and assessee cannot be termed as primary agricultural credit society. Accordingly disallowance of claim of deduction u/ s 80P of the I.T.Act made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the CIT(A). In the result the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the CIT(A) for assessment year under consideration.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, raising following grounds:-

“A. Against the assessment order, the appellant filed statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Thiruvanthapuram and the appeal was allowed as per order dated 25.05.2018. The said order has become final and no further action was taken by the Revenue against the order issued by the appellate authority. So, the rectification order issued by the Appellate Authority is not legal, as there is no apparent error on the face of record of the order issued by the appellate authority.

B. The contention of the revenue is the rectification application tha