ORDER Civil Appeals Nos. 292-98 of 2001 1. We are concerned in these appeals with Assessment Years 1988-1989 to 1994-1995. 2. The High Court reframed the questions that arise in these appeals thus: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee Bank for deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) in respect c of income earned from utilisation of its reserve funds being statutory reserves under Section 67(2) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961? (2) Whether the assessee Bank is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) in respect of income earned from utilisation of its voluntary reserves other than the statutory reserves mentioned above? d(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the locker rent is not deductible under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)?" 3. Insofar as the first question is concerned, it is covered against the Revenue by the judgment delivered by this Court on 22-8-2001 in CIT v. Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank. The first question, therefore, is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 4. Insofar as the third question is concerned, it is clear that the provision of safe deposit vaults is part of the ordinary banking business of a bank; this is shown by Section 6(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the income derived by the assessee from the hiring out of safe deposit vaults is income from the business of banking and, therefore, deductible under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the third f question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 5. Now, as to the second question. We have learned counsel and been referred to various decisions, including the decision of this Court in Bihar State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. CIT. To be able to answer the question, it is necessary to ascertain, as a fact, whether the income derived by the assessee from the investment of its voluntary reserves has been utilised by it in the 9 course of its ordinary banking business. Though the assessee placed before the assessing authority its books of account and balance sheets, the fact afore stated was not considered at any stage, for one or other reason on which it is not necessary for us to dilate. Though the assessee placed before the assessing authority its books of account and balance sheets, the fact afore stated was not considered at any stage, for one or other reason on which it is not necessary for us to dilate. We think that it is in the interests of justice that the assessee should have the opportunity to lead evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) to establish as a fact what is stated above. So far as a the second question is concerned, therefore, the matter stands restored to the 'Commissioner (Appeals) for being decided afresh. He shall also decide any consequential" issue that may arise. 6 -Order on the appeals accordingly. 7. No order as to cost. Civil Appeals Nos. 7448 and 7449 of 2000 8. The only question in these appeals reads thus: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-P in respect of interest income on its total reserve, and in holding so, ignoring its own decision as also the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court?" 9. Insofar as the interest income upon statutory reserves is concerned, the question must be answered in favour of the assessee, in the light of the judgment delivered by us in CIT v. Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank!. As far as the interest income on non-statutory reserves is concerned, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for being decided afresh in the light of the decision that we have just rendered in Civil Appeals Nos. 292-98 of 2001. 10. Accordingly, the civil appeals are allowed and the judgment under appeal is set aside. 11. No order as to costs.