9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1520 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - HELD THAT - Contention of the Ld. AR that the scrutiny was done in the original assessment proceedings on the very same reason is not justified and, therefore, ground no. 1 is dismissed. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - interest earned from Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited - AO observed that the interest income is in the nature of income from Other Sources as per Section 56 attributable to the activities of the assessee society and not derived from a Co-operative Society, thus no deduction is allowable - HELD THAT - Issue is covered by the decision of Sabarkanta District Co-operative Milk Producer s Union Limited 2014 (6) TMI 977 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT appears to be justifiable as the interest earned on Fixed Deposits from Co-operative Bank deposits is coming under the purview of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Deduction claimed u/s. 80P(a)(ii) in respect of cottage industry - The manufacturing activities of the orders received in handlooms and handicrafts are assigned to its member societies/workers and the assessee society had power to direct, supervise and control over manufacturing carried out by the members of assessee society. The Circular cited by the Ld. AR also applies in assessee s case and, therefore, ground no. 3 is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest received from fixed deposits. 3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P(a)(ii) for cottage industry. 4. Alleged breach of law and principles of natural justice by lower authorities. 5. Levying of interest under sections 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 6. Levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment The Assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued that the action of reopening was without jurisdiction and not permissible in law or on facts, stating that mere change of opinion is not a valid ground to reopen the case. The Assessee relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support their argument. However, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the contention that the scrutiny was done on the same reason in the original assessment proceedings was not justified. Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) The Assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest received from fixed deposits with the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, considering the interest income as from Other Sources and not derived from a Co-operative Society. The Assessee argued that the interest earned from the Co-operative Bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal allowed this ground, stating that the interest earned on fixed deposits from Co-operative Bank deposits falls under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Issue 3: Disallowance of Deduction for Cottage Industry The Assessee also claimed a deduction under Section 80P(a)(ii) for Cottage Industries. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, stating that the Assessee did not qualify as a Cottage Industry. The Assessee argued that their activities fell under the purview of Cottage Industries based on relevant case law and circulars. The Tribunal allowed this ground, noting that the Assessee's activities were in line with the definition of Cottage Industries, and the Circular cited by the Assessee applied in their case. Issue 4: Alleged Breach of Law and Principles of Natural Justice The Assessee contended that the lower authorities passed orders without properly appreciating the facts and ignoring submissions, breaching principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal did not provide detailed adjudication on this issue, considering it consequential and not requiring further analysis at that juncture. Issue 5: Levying of Interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D The Assessee challenged the levying of interest under sections 234A/B/C/D of the Act. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment, indicating that it was likely considered consequential and did not require separate adjudication. Issue 6: Levying of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The Assessee contested the levying of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment, suggesting that it was likely considered consequential and did not require separate adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, specifically allowing the grounds related to the disallowance of deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(a)(ii) while dismissing the ground related to the reopening of assessment. The Tribunal did not provide detailed analysis on the issues of alleged breach of law and principles of natural justice, levying of interest, and levying of penalty, considering them as consequential at that stage.
|
