2019 (10) TMI 1484 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - claim of the assessee of interest on FDR held with SBI and commission income from MSEB -.HELD THAT - As identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case 2018 (11) TMI 1883 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein identical question as held that the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any members. It was not the liability. It was not shown as liability in their account. In fact this amount which is in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section 80P(1) of the Act. The order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding interest and commission income.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Principal Commissioner regarding the claim of interest on FDR and commission income from MSEB. The appellant argued that a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had previously decided in their favor on the identical issue. The respondent, however, relied on the order of the Principal Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the co-ordinate bench had indeed decided in favor of the appellant in a similar case. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that interest income earned from deposits kept with banks is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal also cited a similar case where the issue of Electricity Commission was decided in favor of the assessee based on the same reasoning.

The Tribunal observed that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner was incorrect and quashed the order. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and the application of statutory provisions in determining tax liability. The detailed analysis provided a clear understanding of the legal reasoning behind the decision and how it aligned with established case law and statutory provisions.