Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 2.5.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in ITA Nos.1553/Mds/2012 to 1561/Mds/2012. 2. Though a batch of ten appeals were filed by the Revenue, unsuccessfully, before the Tribunal, they are before this Court on appeal in respect of eight matters alone, contending that for the rest of the two matters, the Department thought it fit not to pursue appeals on account of lesser monetary limits involved in those matters. Hence, the above eight appeals are filed in respect of eight different assessees, but the assessment year in respect of all the assessees is one and the same, i.e., 2009-2010. 3. The following questions of law have been framed for consideration in all these appeals :- a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee society eligible for availing the benefits of deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Act? b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee society is a cottage industry and therefore is eligible for deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii)? c) b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee society has satisfied all the criteria laid down in the Board circular No.722 dated 19.9.95 for availing benefits under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii)? 4. The respondents/assessees in all these cases are Co-operative Societies, engaged in production of textile goods and are registered under the Industrial Co-operative Societies Act of Tamil Nadu. The assessees have claimed deduction of income under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii). The claim for deduction, made by the respective assessees, was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The appeals, filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was allowed holding that the assessees are eligible to claim deduction. 5. The Revenue, aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The claim for deduction, made by the respective assessees, was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The appeals, filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was allowed holding that the assessees are eligible to claim deduction. 5. The Revenue, aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessees are duly recognised as cottage industries by the competent authorities under the various provisions of the relevant Act and also taking note of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in ITA No.422/Mds/2011 dated 26.8.2011 for the assessment year 2007-2008 and ITA Nos.2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011 dated 12.6.12 for the assessment year 2008-2009, came to the conclusion that the assessees have clearly made out a case that they are co-operative societies and, consequently, entitled to the benefit of Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Act. While coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal held that the term “cottage industry” is not defined anywhere in the Income Tax Act and the said classification is available only under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act and further held that the assessee is getting all other favours and concessions both from the Central and State Governments and in view of their recognition under the Industrial Development Regulation Act, their status as cottage industry is relevant for the purpose of the Income Tax as well. For better clarity, it is pertinent to extract the reasoning given by the Tribunal in its order, as hereunder :- ”5. The very same issue was considered by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench in the case of AA-399, The Chennimalai Industrial WCS Ltd., through their order dated 26.8.2011 passed in ITA No.422/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal in the said order found that the term “cottage industry” is not defined anywhere in the Income-Tax Act, 1961, but the classification of a cottage industry is available under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act. The assessee-society enjoys the status of a cottage industry under the said Act. The assessee is also getting all other favours and concessions from both Central and State Governments to promote the hand loom industry in its status as a cottage industry. The assessee-society enjoys the status of a cottage industry under the said Act. The assessee is also getting all other favours and concessions from both Central and State Governments to promote the hand loom industry in its status as a cottage industry. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee is mainly producing hand loom bed sheets which sold through the outlets of co-optex hand loom, an apex marketing society formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In that case also, the main reason pointed out by the Assessing Officer to deny the benefit of cottage industry to the assessee was that the size of the assessee's establishment was too big, where it employed more than 2000 workers. Its turnover is crores and crores of rupees and it is a very big co-operative society engaged in producing hand loom goods. On this point, the Tribunal observed that the objections raised by the Assessing Officer on the size and extent of the operation of the assessee-society are not valid to disqualify the assessee from the category of cottage industry for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the recognition available to the assessee-society under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act as a cottage industry is relevant for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961, as well. It was also observed that the assessee is working under the umbrella of the Commissioner of hand loom and Textiles, Government of Tamil Nadu and obtaining various concessions like subsidies, rebates, etc., in promoting the sale of its products. These concessions and facilities are given both by the State and Central Governments to protect the employment and interest of traditional workers and artisans in different fields of cottage industries. Hand loom is a traditional industry in India deploying a large number of workers. The hand loom provides substantial amount of employment to rural population and hand loom is a great contributor to the rural economy. After examining all these aspects of the case, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) in that case was justified in granting benefit of exemption under Sec. 80P (2) (a) (ii). The above view of the Tribunal has been followed in another set of appeals disposed off by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 through their order dated 12.6.2012 in ITA Nos.2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011. 6. The above view of the Tribunal has been followed in another set of appeals disposed off by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 through their order dated 12.6.2012 in ITA Nos.2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011. 6. Therefore, it is seen that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee-societies for the earlier assessment years in a consistent manner. In these circumstances, we find that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in accepting the claim of deduction made by the assessees in all these cases. Accordingly, the orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) are upheld. 7. In result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” The Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the above appeals. 6. Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant laid stress on Circular No.722 dated 19.9.1995, which has laid down certain criteria for a co-operative society engaged in cottage industry to claim deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Act and submitted that based on the abovesaid circular, the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee, for deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii), as the assessees do not fulfill any of the criteria as laid down in the above circular and, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Heard Mr.Swaminathan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record as also the orders passed by the Tribunal. 8. The assessees have claimed deduction of income under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii). The said Section deals with deduction of income of co-operative societies. Sub-clause (a) (ii) of Clause (2) refers to 'cottage industry', which is entitled for deduction under the said Section. Since the issue revolves around the claim of deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii), the same is extracted hereunder for better clarity :- Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. 80P. Sub-clause (a) (ii) of Clause (2) refers to 'cottage industry', which is entitled for deduction under the said Section. Since the issue revolves around the claim of deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii), the same is extracted hereunder for better clarity :- Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. 80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in— (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) a cottage industry, or * * * * * * * * *” 9. On the other hand, reliance was placed on Circular No.722 dated 19.09.1995 by the learned standing counsel for the Department, wherein certain criteria was fixed for a co-operative society to claim deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii). For better clarity, clause-3 of the abovesaid circular, is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference :- “3. What constitutes a 'cottage industry' has been the subject-matter of discussion in a number of cases decided by various Courts. Based on the ratio of these decisions, a co-operative society engaged in cottage industry is required to satisfy following criteria for availing benefits under Section 80P (2) (a) (ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) a cottage industry is one which is carried out on small scale with a small amount of capital and a small number of workers and has a turnover which is correspondingly limited; (b) it should not be required to be registered under the Factories Act; (c) it should be owned and managed by the co-operative society; (d) the activities should be carried on by the members of the society and their families. For this purpose, a family would include self, spouse, parents, children, spouses of the children and any other relative who customarily lives with such a member. Outsiders (i.e., persons other than members and their families) should not work for the society. For this purpose, a family would include self, spouse, parents, children, spouses of the children and any other relative who customarily lives with such a member. Outsiders (i.e., persons other than members and their families) should not work for the society. In other words, the co-operative society should not engage outside hired labour; (e) a member of co-operative society means a shareholder of the society. (f) the place of work could be an artisan shareholder's residence or it could be a common place provided by the co-operative society; (g) the cottage industry must carry on activity of manufacture, production or processing; it should not be engaged merely in trade, i.e., purchase and sale of the same commodity.” 10. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has given a finding that all the assessees are producing handloom bedsheets and other handloom goods, which are sold through outlets of Co-optex, an apex marketing society formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal was of the further view that recognition is available to the assessee under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act as cottage industry, which is also relevant for the purpose of Income Tax Act as well. The assessees are working under the umbrella of the Commissioner of Handloom and Textiles of the Government of Tamil Nadu and obtaining various concessions like subsidies, rebates, etc., for promoting the sale of its products. The purport of granting deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies in terms of Section 80-P is to provide employment and protect the interest of the traditional workers and artisans in different fields of cottage industry. The Tribunal, therefore, taking note of avowed object behind the grant of such benefit to cottage industry, held that the benefit of deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii) is available to all the assessees in question. The Tribunal further held similar stand has been taken in ITA No.422/Mds/2011 dated 26.8.2011 for the assessment year 2007-2008 and ITA Nos.2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011 dated 12.6.12 for the assessment year 2008-2009, which has been its consistent stand in matter of relief under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii). 11. The Tribunal further held similar stand has been taken in ITA No.422/Mds/2011 dated 26.8.2011 for the assessment year 2007-2008 and ITA Nos.2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011 dated 12.6.12 for the assessment year 2008-2009, which has been its consistent stand in matter of relief under Section 80 P (2) (a) (ii). 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal rejected the plea of the Department that the size of the establishment was too big as it employed several hundreds of workers and the turnover is also huge and, therefore, it is not a co-operative society. The reasoning of the Tribunal is primarily on the ground that so long as recognition is available to the respondents/assessees as cottage industry under the provisions of the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, which is relevant for the purpose of Income Tax Act, in the absence of specific definition of 'cottage industry' in the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal was fully justified in accepting the recognition of the assessee as cottage industry by the Central as well as the State Governments. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that no further document is required to be submitted by the assessees to prove that they are cottage industries. 12. Section 80-P provides for deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies and the said section has not laid down any specific conditions or imputations to qualify as such. However, by virtue of a circular, which learned standing counsel for the appellant has relied upon, the Department is trying to import something, which is not found in the main provision. Further, from the circular produced by the appellant, we find that the same is in respect of Weavers' Co-operative Society. Section 80-P does not speak about any particular type of cottage industry. It is an inclusive definition. There is no sub-classification. In any event, as held by the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts in catena of decisions, what the statute provides under Section 80-P, cannot be taken away by means of an administrative circular. Section 80-P does not speak about any particular type of cottage industry. It is an inclusive definition. There is no sub-classification. In any event, as held by the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts in catena of decisions, what the statute provides under Section 80-P, cannot be taken away by means of an administrative circular. In this regard, useful reference can be made to one such judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur – Vs - M/s. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries ( 2008 (13) SCC 1 ), wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the circulars issued by the Department vis-a-vis the decisions of the Courts and their binding nature upon the Court. It is useful to extract the said portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is extracted hereunder :- “6. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be, given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. This Court is of the considered view that what is provided under the statute cannot be denied by means of a circular and, thereby, deny the benefit to the assessees. 14. The further objection of the department that the size of the cottage industries of the assessees with number of workers would go to show that the assessees are not co-operative societies cannot at all be sustained. 14. The further objection of the department that the size of the cottage industries of the assessees with number of workers would go to show that the assessees are not co-operative societies cannot at all be sustained. The mere reason that the size of the industry is big and there are large number of workers employed, is no reason to deny the assessees the benefit available to them under Section 80-P of the Act, when there is no specific embargo imposed under the Act. Accordingly, this Court holds that as long as the assessees are cottage industries, they would be entitled to the benefit of Section 80-P of the Act. No further fetters, as is done by the Department, can be imposed on such a claim, by means of circulars, to the detriment of the assessees. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference at the hands of this Court. 15. For all the reasons stated above, we find no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, there being no merit, all these appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.