9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 160 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s. 80P(2) - case was subject to scrutiny assessment and order u/s. 143(3) finalized - CIT held that assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since the Assessing Officer has failed to carry out enquiries/verification in respect of claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2)(d) - HELD THAT - AO has categorically made specific verification on the impugned issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act which was the basis for an action under section 263 - AO has considered the submission and documentary evidences produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings - we consider that order passed under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law, therefore, order passed u/s. 263 is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to carry out necessary inquiries regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (Pr. CIT) order under section 263, arguing that it was "erroneous, contrary to law, equity, facts and circumstances of the present case and the materials available on record." The Pr. CIT had set aside the AO’s order under section 143(3), claiming that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries into the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Pr. CIT’s notice stated that the AO’s failure to disallow the deduction resulted in under-assessment of ?84,99,892, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) Failed to Carry Out Necessary Inquiries Regarding the Assessee's Claim for Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act: The assessee had filed a return of income claiming a deduction of ?98,69,898 under section 80P(2) and declared a total income of nil. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO allowed the deduction and assessed the total income at ?4,08,470. The Pr. CIT later issued a show-cause notice under section 263, arguing that the AO did not properly verify the deduction claim, especially the interest income from fixed deposits with The Bharuch District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The assessee responded by asserting that co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies under section 2(19) of the Act, and thus, interest income from such banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The assessee also referenced various judicial pronouncements supporting this interpretation. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted documentation showing that the AO had indeed conducted a detailed verification of the deduction claim during the original assessment. The AO had issued a notice under section 142(1) and requested detailed justifications for the deduction, which the assessee provided, along with references to judicial precedents. The assessee also noted that similar deductions had been allowed in previous assessment years without dispute from the revenue. The Tribunal reviewed the material and found that the AO had made specific verifications regarding the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and had considered all relevant submissions and evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT’s order under section 263 was not sustainable in law, as the AO had not failed in his duty to verify the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order under section 263 and allowed the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the Pr. CIT’s revision order under section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and verifications regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) during the original assessment, making the Pr. CIT’s order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
