2021 (9) TMI 1557 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80P(2) on interest and dividend receipts - HELD THAT - We find that there is no material discussion in the assessment order regarding factual matrix as well as assessee s eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80P. The assessee failed to appear during revisional proceedings and could not substantiate the same. All these arguments as put forth by Ld. AR were not considered by Ld. Pr.CIT while setting aside the assessment order. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of thing to restore the matter of revision back to the file of Ld. Pr. CIT to consider factual matrix as well as to consider the arguments of the assessee on the issue. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his stand, in this regard. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in appeal for AY 2015-16.
2. Eligibility of cooperative credit society for deduction u/s 80P.
3. Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2015-16.
4. Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2016-17.

Analysis:

Condonation of Delay in Appeal for AY 2015-16:
The appellant sought condonation of a 38-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16. The delay was attributed to the failure of the office employees to bring the hearing notices and orders to the attention of the concerned officials. The Tribunal, after reviewing the affidavit, granted condonation of the delay, allowing the appeal to be admitted for further adjudication.

Eligibility of Cooperative Credit Society for Deduction u/s 80P:
The cooperative credit society claimed a deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for AY 2015-16. However, the order was revised under section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not inquire into the taxability of interest income, leading to an erroneous order. The Tribunal directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment due to the failure to consider the eligibility of the society for the deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(4). The appellant contended that the interest and dividend income were eligible for deduction based on investments in cooperative banks, supported by various Tribunal decisions and the High Court ruling.

Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2015-16:
The revisional jurisdiction was invoked for AY 2015-16 due to the AO's failure to investigate the taxability of interest income, rendering the order prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The appellant's arguments were not considered during the revisional proceedings, leading the Tribunal to remand the matter back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) for a reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the factual matrix and the appellant's contentions.

Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2016-17:
Similar to AY 2015-16, the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries led to the revision of the assessment order for AY 2016-17 under section 263. The appellant relied on judicial pronouncements to support the eligibility of interest income for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal set aside the revisional order and remanded the matter to the Pr. CIT for a comprehensive review, mirroring the decision taken for AY 2015-16.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the factual and legal aspects concerning the eligibility of the cooperative credit society for deductions under Sec. 80P. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation by the Pr. CIT to address the deficiencies in the assessment orders and provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to substantiate their claims.