2020 (12) TMI 401 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - CIT setting aside order by ACIT u/s. 143(3) - deduction u/s 80P on account of interest received by assessee from Saraswat Co-op Bank Ltd. as well as from Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank denied - HELD THAT - Assessee was subjected to limited scrutiny assessment vide notice dated 27/07/2016. One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was deduction under Chapter-VI-A. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was directed to explain the deduction claimed under Chapter-VI-A. The assessee, in its submissions dated 09/08/2016 as well as 22/12/2017 filed complete details of interest so earned along with note on deduction claimed u/s 80P. Finally, after considering the same, Ld. AO chose to accept the same and therefore, allowed the same specifically while framing the assessment. These facts would show that Ld. AO was clinched with the issue and had taken a possible view in the matter. The view was in line with the various judicial decisions prevailing at the time of making the assessment and the same could not be said to be perverse or against the law, in any manner. There was due application of mind to the issue by Ld. AO. Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - revisional jurisdiction could not be held to be valid under law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Validity of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 for AY 2015-16

Analysis:
1. Validity of Revisional Jurisdiction: The appeal challenges the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 for the assessment year 2015-16. The key issue revolves around the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received by the assessee from cooperative banks. The Principal Commissioner opined that the deduction was erroneously allowed by the Assessing Officer, leading to under-assessment of income. The assessee contended that the deduction was rightly claimed, supported by provisions of the Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, 1961, and judicial precedents. However, the Principal Commissioner disagreed, holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest, directing a reassessment.

2. Assessment Proceedings: The Assessing Officer had conducted a limited scrutiny assessment focusing on deductions under Chapter-VI-A, including section 80P. The assessee provided detailed explanations and documents regarding the interest income and deduction claimed under section 80P. The Assessing Officer accepted the explanations and allowed the deduction while framing the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had applied due diligence and considered various judicial decisions, indicating a reasonable view taken during the assessment process. Citing legal precedents, including the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case and subsequent judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that not every loss of revenue constitutes an order prejudicial to revenue's interest, especially when the Assessing Officer's decision is within the bounds of the law.

3. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal highlighted the legal principles concerning the term "erroneous" in the context of revisional jurisdiction under section 263. Referring to judgments such as CIT v. Max India Ltd. and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal emphasized that an order cannot be deemed erroneous merely due to a different interpretation by the Commissioner, as long as the Assessing Officer's decision aligns with the law. Quoting the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Vikas Polymers, the Tribunal reiterated that an order must be contrary to law to be considered erroneous, emphasizing that the Commissioner's judgment should not replace that of the Assessing Officer unless the decision is legally unsustainable.

4. Decision: Considering the facts and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner was not valid under the law. By quashing the revision order, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's reasonable approach and adherence to legal provisions during the assessment. The appeal was thus allowed in favor of the assessee, setting aside the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 for the assessment year 2015-16.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the legal principles applied by the Tribunal in arriving at its decision.