G. SANTHANAM, A.M. These are appeals by assessee they involve common issues, consolidated order is passed for sake of convenience. assessee is co-operative society carrying on business in banking. It had building of its own of which 1/3 portion is let out and 2/3 portion is being used for purpose of its business. income from let out portion is assessed under head 'house property . In addition to this, assessee had income from banking business and income from other sources being dividends from M/s Industrial Finance Corporation Ltd. assessee claimed exemption in respect of its entire income under s. 80P of Act. ITO allowed exemption in respect of its entire income under s. 80P of Act. ITO allowed exemption in respect to income from banking business under s. 80P(1). In respect of income from house property chargeable under s. 22, he was of view that inasmuch as gross total income of assessee exceeded Rs. 20,000 assessee was not entitled to any exemption under s. 80P(2)(f). As regards dividend income, he denied exemption under s. 80L as section applied only to cases of individuals and HUF s. In first appeal, assessee stated its claim for exemption under s. 80P(2)(c) and it was contended that term 'activities used in said clause does not necessarily mean business activities and it would include activities like letting out of house property, investing in share and securities for dividends or interest. It was further urged that various clauses of s. 80P are mutually exclusive and, therefore, if one finds that particular item of income is exempt under any one of these clauses, same would be entitled to exemption even though under any other particular clauses claim may not be allowable. CIT (A) agreed with view that various clauses of s. 80P are mutually exclusive, but at same time, he was of view that assessee was not entitled to exemption under s. 80P(2)(c). It was his view that words "profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities" as described in s. 80P(2)(c) would be distinct from words like 'income or 'receipts and further, s. 80P(2)(c) puts monetary ceiling of Rs. 20,000 and, as such, assessee was not entitled to exemption. Before us, Shri M.J. Swamy, ld. counsel for assessee, urged that t h e part of income of co-operative society from letting out of its building and small amount of dividend received from IFC would be exempt either under provisions of s. 80P(2)(f) or under s. 80P(2)(c) record with s. 80P(2)(a)(i). He emphasized that expression 'attributable to used in s. 80P is much is much wider than expression 'derived from and it covers receipts from sources other than actual conduct of business of assessee. For this proposition, he relied on decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., (1979) 10 CTR (All) 282: (1979) 118 ITR 770 (All). He submitted that assessee had only one building for its use and factually 2/3 of building is being used for business of assessee and only 1/3 is being let out. Though income from let out portion of building is assessed under 'house property , it could not be gainsaid that letting out of property is incidental to carrying on of business of society. In this view of matter, he submitted that income from house property was incidental to assessee s main business and should be considered as part of business income even though assessed under s. 22, and hence exempt. As for dividend, he submitted that amount is very small less than Rs. 10 in first year and it was by virtue of investment of funds of society with Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC) and same is also eligible for exemption under s. 80P. Sri Kailasnath for Department supported order of CIT(A) and relied on decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P. Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 472 (AP). Having regard to rival submissions and materials on record, we set aside order of CIT (A). There is no dispute that assessee is co- operative society engaged in business of banking. It has building in which business is carried on. 1/3 of building is of course let out and income therefrom under head "income from house property". Merely because part of building in which business is carried on is let out and income assessed under s. 22, it would not mean that letting out of building is not incidental to carrying on of main business of assessee. This is not case of co-operative society having number of buildings which are let out or of co-operative society letting out its godowns. Before ITO, assessee staked its claim under s. 80P(2) (f) and before CIT(A), assessee urged its claim under s. 80P(2)(c). Before us, it was argued that if claim is not allowable under s. 80P(2)(f), at least it should be considered under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) r/w s. 80P (2) (c). In CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) Supreme Court held that all questions of law or fact, which relate all questions of law or fact, which relate all questions of law or fact, which relate to assessment year, may be raised before Tribunal and that if, for reasons recorded by Departmental authorities in rejecting contention raised by assessee, another ground is justified, it would be open to Tribunal to grant that relief and right of assessee to relief is not restricted to plea raised by him. It is not disputed that acquisition of building by assessee was only for purpose of (banking) business. letting out of portion of this building was only incidental to carrying on of (banking) business. assessee s business is not that of builder or real estate owner who builds properties and lets them out on rent. investment in purchase of property for its use was also part and parcel of its business of banking, because there are restrictions on bank in investing in immovable property except for purpose of carrying on its banking business. S. 6(1) (k) of Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (X of 1949), reads as follows: "6. Forms of business in which banking companies may engage. (1) In addition to business of banking banking company may engage in any one or more of following forms of business, namely: (a) to (j) (k) acquisition, construction, maintenance and alteration of any building or works necessary or convenient for purposes of company:" Supreme Court, in CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 306 (SC) held that scheme of IT Act is that income-tax is one tax and that s. 6 of Indian IT Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 14 of 1961 Act, classified taxable income under different heads only for purposes of computation of net income of assessee. Their Lordships held that whether particular income is part of income from business is to be decided, not on basis of provisions of s. 6, but on commercial principles. In view of these, we allow appeal under s. 80P (2) (a) (i). Even alternative submission of appellant for exemption under s. 80P (2) (c) has to be accepted. It is not in dispute that rental income of Rs. 11,825 for 1980-81 rental income of Rs. 11,825 for 1980-81 and Rs. 11,877 for 1981-82 is attributable to activities other than those specified in s. 80P (2)(c). ld. counsel is right in his plea that words employed in s. 80P (2) (c) viz. "profits and gains attributable to such activities" are wider in their scope than "income derived from letting of godowns or warehouse for storage" used in s. 80P(2)(c). In interpreting s. 80P(2)(c), Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Co- operative Cane Development Union Ltd. (1979) 10 CTR (All) 282: (1979) 118 ITR 770 (All) held that expression "attributable to" would cover receipts from sources other than actual conduct of business of assessee. In this view of matter, it was decided in that case that interest earned by society, which was carrying on business of supplying sugarcane, on statutory investment in government securities, was held to be profit attributable to carrying on activity of supplying sugarcane. In case relied on by learned departmental representative, Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court was concerned with certain types of societies with income less than Rs. 20,000 by way of interest on securities and High Court was concerned with interpreting s. 81(i)(a) and s. 81 (v). In that case, it was found that where co- operative society earned any profits or gains not pertaining to its business but by mere investment in government securities or in any other manner, such categories of income are not exempt from income tax under s. 81 (1) (a) as it than stood, and for claiming exemption under s. 81 (v), it was held that income of co-operative society did not exceed Rs. 20,000. IN case before us, though claim was made by assessee in respect of house property income under s. 80P (2) (f), corresponding to old s. 80 (v), plea was virtually given up before us by ld. counsel for assessee. He confined his submissions to s. 80P (2) (a) r/w s. 80P (2) (c) of IT Act. Besides, Andhra Pradesh High Court decision was given in context of investments of society s surplus funds in government securities. In case before us, it is very building of society in which its business is being carried on which is involved and what has happened is only part of building, that too only 1/3 of building, was let out. It is our considered view that rental income is attributable to business activity of society in that it being incidental thereto or is one covered by s. 6 (1) (k) of Banking Regulation Act, and claim of assessee would squarely fall under either Rs. 80 (2) (a) or s. 80P (2) (c). Therefore, we set aside order of CIT (A) and allow appeals of assessee in respect of income from house property. As for deduction for dividend, assessee is not entitled to any deduction in view of deduction of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 472. (AP). In result, appeals are partly allowed. *** VIZAG COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER