JUDGMENT T. S. Sivagnanam J.-By consent of learned counsel on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at stage of admission itself. Heard Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel for respondents. petitioner is co-operative society registered under provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short "the Act"). It derives income from carrying on business of providing credit facility to its members and income from house property, selling of plots and dividend income. petitioner is assessed to tax on files of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I/first respondent. issue involved in these writ petitions relates to four assessment years from 2008 to 2012. Since scope of these writ petitions is narrow, it may not be necessary to go into factual details of each and every assessment order and pattern of orders of assessment for four years are also identical. assessments were completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of Income-tax Act disallowing claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Income-tax Act on ground that co-operative society provides credit facility to its members and petitioner's society is carrying on business of banking and, hence, not eligible for deduction under section 80P(4) of Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by disallowance, petitioner-society preferred appeals before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai, on April 25, 2014, and same is pending. In meanwhile, petitioner also filed stay petitions before first respondent for stay of collection of demand on ground that appeals have been filed against disallowance made in assessment orders. first respondent, vide order dated September 1, 2014, directed petitioner to pay 25 per cent. of demand immediately and balance in 10 instalments. Aggrieved over same, petitioner again preferred stay petitions before Commissioner of Income-tax-VIII/second respondent herein. Vide order dated September 18, 2014, second respondent observed that no case has been made out as to why stay of taxes need be given and filing of appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be valid ground for deferring recovery proceedings. Hence, petition for stay of collection filed could not be entertained and petitioner was requested to remit demand immediately. Thereupon, petitioner filed another stay application on September 24, 2014. In said stay petition, petitioner contended that, vide Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007, benefit of deduction available to certain co-operative banks were withdrawn by insertion of new sub-section (4) to provide that provisions of this section will not apply in relation to any co- operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank. petitioner relied upon circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Circular No. 6 of 2010, dated September 20, 2010 (see [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 63), wherein it was stated that section 80P was amended by Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007, introducing sub-section (4), which lays down specifically that provisions of section 80P will not apply to any co-operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. Accordingly, deduction under section 80P was no more available to any regional rural bank from assessment year 2007-08 onwards. It was contended that expressions "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" have been taken as per definition given in Part V of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), and primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank have also been defined in Act to bring clarity. petitioner placed reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. reported in [2014] 362 ITR 331 (Guj). petitioner pointed out that during course of assessment, petitioner, vide letter dated March 24, 2014, has submitted that it is cooperative credit society providing credit facilities to its members and not bank under Banking Regulation Act. It does not have licence to act as bank and object of society is to help its members on housing needs and, hence, object of society is to help its members on housing needs and, hence, deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be denied. Further, it was stated that Assessing Officer had come to wrong conclusion that activities of collecting cheques from customers, collecting cash and issuing receipts for same is nothing but banking and denied deduction under section 80P. By relying upon section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act, it was contended that petitioner-society is not bank and they do not hold licence as required under section 22 of Banking Regulation Act. However, it was submitted that provisions of Banking Regulation Act, namely, sections 5(b) and 22 were not taken note of at time of assessment. Therefore, it was reiterated that object of society is to help its members on housing needs and, hence, section 80P(4) will not be applicable in case of petitioner. petitioner placed reliance on clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, while granting stay of demand and reliance was also placed on clause C to guidelines, more particularly sub-clauses (a) to (c). By placing reliance on abovesaid clarification, it was submitted that High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT v. Jafari Momin Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (supra) has held that section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative bank and not to co-operative credit societies and submitted that said decision fully supports case of petitioner and, therefore, petitioner would fall within clause (c) of Central Board of Direct Taxes notification and, thus, requested for grant of stay. Further, it was submitted that section 2(14)(viia) of Act only applies to co-operative societies carrying on business of banking and it does not apply to present case since petitioner is not carrying on business of banking, as it does not hold mandatory licence from RBI to carry business of banking. It was also submitted that merits of petitioner's case was not properly considered at time, when stay petition was rejected. It was further stated that if petitioner is called upon to pay entire demand, it would cripple their financial position and all members will be put irreparable hardship and, therefore, requested for grant of stay. Income-tax Officer (Head Quarters), Chennai, vide impugned proceedings informed petitioner comments given by Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai VIII, before whom stay petition was filed and it was stated that in stay petition, petitioner has mentioned that demand has arisen due to interpretation of law and case is pending before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), stay of demand cannot be granted unless there is clear case of financial stringency and also filing of appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be valid ground for deferring recovery proceedings. Hence, petition for stay of collection filed was not entertained. It is to be noted that petitioner in stay petition has specifically raised that decision of hon'ble Gujarat High Court is fully in their favour. Therefore, they have raised issue to establish prima facie case. That apart, specific case of petitioner is that they are not doing banking activities and they do not fall within definition of banking as defined under section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act nor do they possess licence under section 22 of said Act, which is mandatory requirement. As per clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated December 1, 2009, detailed instructions have been given as to how and under what circumstances, stay of demand could be granted. In fact, guidelines for staying demand have been specifically stated as under: "C. Guidelines for staying demand (i) demand will be stayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so. Mere filing appeal against assessment order will not be sufficient reason to stay recovery of demand. few illustrative situations where stay could be granted are: (a) if demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by appellate authority or court earlier; or (b) if demand in dispute has arisen because Assessing Officer had adopted interpretation of law in respect of which there exist conflicting decisions of one or more High Courts (not of High Court under whose jurisdiction Assessing Officer is working); or (c) if High Court having jurisdiction has adopted contrary interpretation but Department has not accepted that judgment." Undoubtedly, guidelines are binding upon officer, while considering application for grant of stay. case on hand clearly falls within clause C(i)(c) of above guidelines. That apart, three cardinal principles to be adopted for grant of interim order are that: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) irreparable loss or hardship. (i) When petitioner has placed reliance on decision of hon'ble Gujarat High Court, that can very well be considered. Since said decision has not been considered, petitioner has duly established prima facie case. (ii) next aspect to be considered is whether balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner-society. If decision of hon'ble Gujarat High Court is said to be applicable to case of petitioner, then obviously balance of convenience is in their favour. Further contention is that petitioner-society is not doing banking business and, therefore, they do not fall within definition of banking as defined under section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act nor do they possess licence for carrying on business. It is also good ground to consider balance of convenience in their favour. (iii) next aspect for consideration is as to whether pending appeal, if demand is to be enforced, would it cause irreparable hardship to petitioner. At this stage, we have to note that petitioner is cooperative society registered under provisions of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. bye-laws of society have been produced before this court, which clearly shows that society has to work and function for benefit of its members. Unlike any other private organisation, society operates on strict parameters in accordance with provisions of Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983, and Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. Therefore, if entire tax levied is directed to be remitted, it would undoubtedly cause severe financial hardship and it would also cripple their entire activities. Ultimately, members of society would be put to irreparable hardship. It is brought to notice of this court that pursuant to impugned order, bank account of society is frozen. This would all more cause great prejudice to petitioner-co-operative society. In such circumstances, this court is of view that petitioner has made out case for grant of interim stay till appeal is heard, disposed of by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, it is open to both parties to request Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for early hearing of appeal. In result, all these writ petitions are allowed and impugned orders are set aside. There shall be order of interim stay of collection of tax from petitioner in respect of four assessment years till disposal of appeal by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. *** Katpadi Co-operative Township Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax