9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EME COURT), incorrect application of relevant provisions of law will render the order of the AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. However, in present case, CIT has directed in the impugned order that the claimed deduction is not admissible to the assessee and at the same time set aside the matter to the file of the AO meaning thereby that the powers of the AO to examine the issue have been curtailed. Therefore, this direction of non-admissibility is modified and AO is directed to examine the assessee’s claim for eligibility in accordance with the amended provisions sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act - Decided partly in favor of assessee for statistical purposes - ITA No.257/Ind/2012 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o comment was made by the learned CIT. A plea was also raised that regarding eligibility of the society for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the learned CIT took complete U turn and admitted that sub-section (4) of section 80P was inserted in the statute with effect from 1.4.2007. Reliance was placed on the decision in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Industrial Estate; 75 Taxman 503 (AP) to the effect that the learned CIT is expected to point out exact error in the order which he proposes to revise. The decision in the case of CIT vs. Norten Motors; 275 ITR 595 (P H) was also relied upon. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also challenged assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the learned CIT by submitting that the twin condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT; 243 ITR 83 (SC) (c) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers; 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (d) Paul Mathews Sons vs. CIT; 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) It was contended that the assessee society fulfilled the necessary conditions which are required for claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also asserted that in earlier assessment years, such deduction was allowed to the assessee and the status was also accepted 3. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, Shri Darshan Singh, strongly defended the impugned order by submitting that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, the revisional powers invoked by the learned CIT are cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order are kept in juxtaposition and analysed, we find that an amendment was brought in by insertion of sub-section (4) of section 80P by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from assessment year 2007-08 which has specifically excluded certain cooperative societies from the purview of section 80P. This amendment was not considered by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. As per verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries; 243 ITR 83 (SC) incorrect application of relevant provisions of law will render the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. However, as reproduced hereinabove, the learned CIT has dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
