9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 843 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT assessment completed by the AO u/s 143(3) is erroneous allowing the similar claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2) in respect of interest income earned on the deposits with Mehsana Urban Co-operative Bank - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the present case is thus squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of the People Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 71 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein a similar issue involving identical facts and circumstances has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and even the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position. We, therefore, follow the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and set aside the impugned order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act restoring that of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act for interest income from cooperative banks. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Gandhinagar, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a Co-operative Credit Society, declared a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming a deduction of Rs.1,45,79,975/- under Section 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,723/- on interest on refund received under Section 244A of the Act. The Principal Commissioner found that interest income of Rs.56,31,821/- received by the assessee from cooperative banks was wrongly allowed as a deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment order and directing a denovo assessment in accordance with law based on the Karnataka High Court judgment. The assessee contended that the Gujarat High Court's decision differed from the Karnataka High Court's ruling. The Principal Commissioner upheld the revision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the arguments and noted that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of the People Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., where the order under Section 263 was set aside, restoring that of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue in the present case was covered by the previous decision, and the Departmental Representative did not contest this position. Consequently, the Tribunal followed the earlier decision and allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order passed under Section 263 and restoring that of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the precedent set in a similar case, where the order under Section 263 was set aside, restoring the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the previous ruling, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.
|
