9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 840 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision u/s 263 enhancing scope of limited scrutiny proceedings - differential amount was received from Co-operative bank which was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - As per CIT deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income wholly received from Co-operative Bank is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - HELD THAT - PCIT cannot enhance the scope of limited scrutiny proceedings by restoring to proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The assessment proceedings had been initiated for examining the issues like Investments/Advances/Loans, Disallowance u/s. 40(9) (Contribution to Fund, etc.) and Disallowance u/s. 40A(7) (Gratuity provision), however, in the 263 proceedings, the PCIT sought to revise the assessment order on the ground of non-consideration of claim of deduction of interest under Section 80P of the Act. In our view, this is not permissible. It is not open to the PCIT, while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act, to find fault with assessment order on the ground of it being erroneous on an issue not covered by the scope of limited scrutiny assessment, when the Assessing Officer could not have possibly examined such issue under limited scrutiny assessment. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 under Section 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment order under Section 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment for verification of the eligibility of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest earned from a Co-operative Bank, was valid. Details of the Judgment: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot, setting aside the assessment order under Section 143(3) on the ground that the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act was not eligible. The Ld. PCIT contended that the interest income received from the Co-operative bank was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, leading to the differential amount issue. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the claim of deduction under Section 80P was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny assessment and, therefore, the order of the AO was not erroneous. Reference was made to previous decisions of Rajkot ITAT to support this argument. Additionally, it was contended that the interest income received from the Co-operative Bank was indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, citing relevant judicial precedents. Furthermore, it was highlighted that recent judicial pronouncements supported the eligibility of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from Cooperative Banks. The argument was strengthened by referring to specific cases and judgments that upheld the benefit of deduction under this section for income earned from investments with cooperative banks. The Tribunal agreed with the contentions of the assessee's counsel, stating that the PCIT could not enhance the scope of limited scrutiny proceedings by resorting to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It was emphasized that the PCIT could not find fault with the assessment order on an issue not covered by the limited scrutiny assessment. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 and held that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Separate Judgment: The judgment was delivered by Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member, and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member.
|
