9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 950 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - no enquiries were indeed carried out by the ld AO - eligibility of assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act by taking due cognizance of the fact that the assessee is a registered co-operative housing society deriving interest income from deposits kept with co-operative banks - HELD THAT - We find that the ld AO had indeed made requisite enquiries on the subject mentioned issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Infact the return itself was selected for limited scrutiny for examining the said deduction, among others. AO had indeed carried our requisite enquiries on the same and had duly applied his mind on the eligibility of assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act by taking due cognizance of the fact that the assessee is a registered co-operative housing society deriving interest income from deposits kept with co-operative banks. AO had even applied his mind that in respect of interest income derived from public sector banks (viz Bank of Baroda and Bank of India), the assessee would not be entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Act as the same is eligible for only for interest derived from co-operative bank. Hence in our considered opinion, the conclusion of the ld PCIT that no enquiries were indeed carried out by the ld AO cannot be accepted and hence the revision order passed by him u/s 263 of the Act in this regard, is hereby quashed. We find from the computation of total income, the assessee had not claimed any expenditure as deduction, in view of the fact that the entire expenses had been disallowed by the assessee voluntarily in the return of income. Hence there cannot be any applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This crucial fact has been completely overlooked by the PCIT while assuming revision jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Validity of assumption of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld PCIT.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was against the revision order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai u/s.263 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The main issue was whether the ld PCIT validly assumed revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the given circumstances. 3. The assessee, a cooperative housing society, declared Nil income from business and income from other sources, claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. 4. The ld AO, during scrutiny assessment, disallowed certain interest income not derived from a cooperative bank, leading to an addition in the total income. 5. The ld PCIT sought to revise the assessment, alleging lack of inquiries and disallowance of certain expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. The Tribunal found that the ld AO had indeed made necessary inquiries regarding the deduction u/s 80P, considering the nature of the assessee as a cooperative housing society. 7. The Tribunal referenced decisions of Mumbai Tribunal and Supreme Court supporting the allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for cooperative housing societies. 8. It was noted that the ld PCIT overlooked that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed all expenses, making section 40(a)(ia) inapplicable. 9. The Tribunal concluded that the ld PCIT's assumption of revision jurisdiction was unwarranted and quashed the revision order. Outcome: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the revision order passed by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was quashed.
|
