9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal also followed the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot,(2015 (1) TMI 821 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) and other decisions. Following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, it is held that the assessee society is eligible to deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is located in a rural area and does not have access to advice of professionals, the Board Members were at different places and were of the bonafide belief that there was no scope for further appeal. This fact has also been sworn to by Shri S.C. Navalgund, CA of the assessee, that he had advised the assessee that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. the claim of section 80P may not be maintainable at that stage and a second opinion in the matter may be obtained. It was only on basis of a second opinion that appeal ought to have been filed before the ITAT, that the assessee forthwith filed an appeal on 27.08.2015 which resulted in delay of 578 days. In the above circumstances, it is stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In the present case, the delay of 578 days has occasioned due to bonafide belief on the basis of the advice of first tax consultant that there was no scope for further appeal and on receipt of a second opinion that appeal was maintainable for the claim of deduction u/s. 80P, the appeal came to be filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the delay is due to a reasonable cause and therefore the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. On merits, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the assessee society is rightly eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. The ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that section 154 will not lie in the case of a debatable issue as there is no error apparent on record. The CIT(A) has failed to consider the decisions of the jurisdictional Tribunal in a plethora of cases wherein deduction u/s. section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has been claimed by the co-operative societies and deduction has been allowed following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot, 369 ITR 86 (Karn). Hence, the CIT(A) erred in not following the judicial discipline. 12. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. MSEB Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., 50 taxmann.com 210 (Pune Trib.) had considered similar issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is to be assessed as per provisions of the Act, in spite of higher income incorrectly declared by the assessee in the return of income. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on being not properly instructed is over assessed, the concerned authority is obliged, required to assist such an assessee by ensuring that only legitimate taxes are determined as collectible. 14. Following the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MSEB Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. (supra), the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and it is held that assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) ought to have been considered by the lower authorities in the rectification proceedings u/s. 154, though such claim was om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
