ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is the Income Tax Reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of Revenue and the Tribunal has referred following four question of law for answer by this Court:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from locker rent at Rs. 9, 496/-, Rs. 18,340/-, Rs. 17,310/- and Rs. 20,116/- for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 are entitled to exemption under section 80 P. of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from the house rent at Rs. 4,239/- and Rs. 11,007/- for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 are entitled to exemptions u/s. 80 P. of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from miscellaneous receipts at Rs. 10, 373/-, Rs. 6,984/-, Rs. 14, 662/- and Rs. 8, 002/- for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 are entitled to exemption under section 80 P. of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (iv) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from interest on securities earmarked to reserve fund and gratuity at Rs. 61,400/-, Rs. 52,775/-, Rs. 49,625/-and Rs. 50,820/- for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 are entitled to exemption under Section 80 P. of the I.T. Act. 1961 ? 2. The assessee is a co-operative society primarily engaged in the banking business. The assessee filed returns claiming exemption under Section 80 P. of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had other sources of income which were not in the nature of banking. The Assessing Officer added income from other sources. Against the orders of the Income - Tax Officer, the assessee went in appeal to the Dy. C.I.T. (Appeals), who following the orders of the Tribunal dated 6.5.1986 in I.T.A. No. 219/Nag/1982 for assessment year 1977-78, dated 6.2.1987 in I.T.A. Nos. 761 to 763/Nag/. 84 and ITA Nos. The Assessing Officer added income from other sources. Against the orders of the Income - Tax Officer, the assessee went in appeal to the Dy. C.I.T. (Appeals), who following the orders of the Tribunal dated 6.5.1986 in I.T.A. No. 219/Nag/1982 for assessment year 1977-78, dated 6.2.1987 in I.T.A. Nos. 761 to 763/Nag/. 84 and ITA Nos. 975 and 976/Nag/85 for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1982-83 respectively in the assessee's own case, held that no part of the income was taxable, deleted the additions and allowed the assessee's appeals. Aggrieved by orders of the Dy. CIT (A), the Department went in appeal to the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal observed that the issue in controversy is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal and by the decision of the High Court of M.P. reported in 149 ITR 438, 164 ITR 713, (1987) Taxation 84 (3) - 163 and 166 ITR 623. The Tribunal following the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal and of High Court of M.P. maintained the orders of the Dy. CIT (A) and dismissed the departmental appeals. Against these orders, the Department approached the Tribunal for making reference to this Court and accordingly, the aforesaid four questions of law have been referred to by the Department to this Court for answer. 4. So far as the first question whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from locker rent is entitled to exemption under Section 80 P of the Act is concerned, it is directly answered by judgment of this Court in the case of Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Vs. CIT M.P. 169 I.T.R. 573. The Division Bench of this Court in this case has taken the view - However, the income derived from locker rent cannot be correlated to any of the activities which may fall within the definition of 'banking' and hence the same is not entitled to exemption under Section 80 P. (2) (a) (i) but will be governed by Section 80 P. (2) (c). Therefore, this question is accordingly answered in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 5. Therefore, this question is accordingly answered in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 5. As regards second question, whether the house rent is entitled to exemption u/s. 80 P. of the Act, suffice to say that under section 80 P. of the Act, me amount of profits should be attributable to one of the activities enumerated in Sec. 80 P (2) (a) (i) to (v) of the Act We have examined these items. So far as the house rent is concerned, it does not fall in any of these clauses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the house rent is attributable to the banking activities and therefore, exemption cannot be made available to the assessee. We therefore answer the question No. 2 against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 6. Question No. (iii) relates to income from miscellaneous receipts. It is not known as to what is the nature of receipts. According to the description which has been made by the Tribunal in its order, the receipts are attributable to the banking business. These receipts which are attributable to the banking business of the assessee are therefore entitled to exemption. There are concurrent findings of all the three courts below that the income from these receipts is attributable to the banking activity of the assessee. There is no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the three courts below in the matter. This is also supported by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhar Central Cooperative Bank 149 I.T.R. 438 where, in normal situation, this question was answered in favour of the assessee and it was observed as under: Judged by this test, income earned by the assessee from commission and brokerage by dealing in bills of exchange, subsidy from Government, admission fee from members, incidental charges and financial penalties, is all attributable to the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and, hence, deductible under S. 80 P. of the Act. Question No. (iii) is therefore answered against revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Question No. (iv) relates to income from interest on securities earmarked to reserve fund and gratuity and whether such incomes are entitled to exemption u/s. 80 P. of the Act. Question No. (iii) is therefore answered against revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Question No. (iv) relates to income from interest on securities earmarked to reserve fund and gratuity and whether such incomes are entitled to exemption u/s. 80 P. of the Act. This question has been directly answered in the decision in the case of M.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income tax (1), wherein, their Lordships of Supreme Court have interpreted Section 81 (now Sec. 80 P.) of the Act and held that such securities are not part of the business of banking and therefore, the exemption cannot be given. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus ? The object of section 81 of the Income-tax Act 1961, is to encourage co-operative movement in the country by providing tax exemption to those Co-operatives engaged in activities set out in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. One such activity is the carrying on of the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society. The section, therefore provides that income - tax shall not be payable by a co-operative society in respect of the profits and gains of business carried on by it, if it arises from the business of banking or providing credit facilities for its members. However, if such a co-operative society also engages itself in activities other than the business of banking or providing credit facilities the profits derived from such business shall not be exempt from tax if it exceeds rupees fifteen thousand. It is, therefore, obvious that the entire income derived by a co-operative society from the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members is exempt from income tax, but if that society also engages itself in any other activity and earns profit therefrom, the income so derived becomes liable to assessment and payment of income-tax if it exceeds the ceiling amount The normal banking activity is to receive deposits and utilise such deposites by advancing loans, etc. to borrowers. Since the rate at which interest it paid to depsitors is lower than the rate charged from borrowers, the difference in the rates generates income for the banks. to borrowers. Since the rate at which interest it paid to depsitors is lower than the rate charged from borrowers, the difference in the rates generates income for the banks. The banks may have to maintain certain reserves to meet emergencies e.g., a spurt in withdrawals at short notice would, therefore, be a part of the requirement of banking business and interest accuring on such investments would be outside the tax not. It is also observed - Hence, the interest on Government securities placed with the State Bank of India or the Reserve Bank of India, could not qualify for exemption under Sec. 81 (now section 80 P.) of the Income-tax Act. Since this question has been directly answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the interest on Government securities is not entitled for exemption, we answer question No. (iv) against assessee and in favour of Revenue. However, Shri Shrivastava learned counsel for assessee has submitted that the decision given in the case of 218 I.T.R. 438 has not taken into consideration the expression' activity through the banking business'. Learned counsel invited our attention to he cases reported in CIT Bombay Vs. P.K. Jhaveri 181 I.T.R. 79 and Distributors Baroda P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (SC) 155 ITR 120 and submitted that a some of the judgments are of Constitutional Bench. True, the expression attributable to the banking business' has not been directly discussed, but none the less their Lordships of the Hon. Supreme Court have discussed the scope of section 80 P. and it is not for this Court to say or comment about the aforesaid decision as that is the latest judgment in point of time. We are of the opinion that the judgment cited by Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for assessee do not provide any assistance for answering this reference. 8. In the result, we answer question No. (i) accordingly as stated above, question No. (ii) is answered against the assessee and in favour of revenue, question No. (iii) is answered in favour of assessee and against revenue, and question No. (iv) is answered in favour of revenue and against the assessee. Reference is answered accordingly.