9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d "the C.I.T.") erred on facts and in law in passing the order dated 20th March, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. The C.I.T. erred in not appreciating that in the present case the original assessment order was passed after considering all the details and the documents furnished by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer and hence C.I.T. was not justified in exercising the suo moto power of revision under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. It is therefore also submitted that the original assessment order was passed after a proper examination and enquiry into all the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 80(P) (2)(a)(i) of the Act is 'activity based 'as opposed to being 'business based'. It is submitted that the Appellant was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members which was also eligible to a deduction under section 80(P) (2) (a) (i) of the Act. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal. The Registry had noted certain defects in the appeal documents which were duly communicated to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee vide letter dated 16/07/2015 has filed a revised Form No. 36 after rectifying the defects as pointed out by the registry. It has been submitted that a liquidator has been appointed for the assessee and all the powers to undertake legal proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant portion of which is extracted below:- The assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 which has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. act, 1961 on 25.03.2013 by the ITO-1(1)-1, Mumbai found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. You are therefore required to explain as to "Why the revision in assessment order u/s. 143(3) dtd. 28.03.2014 should not be made U/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the account of following reasons: "On verification of record it was observed that the license of the bank was cancelled w.e.f 30.10.2003 hence, the bank is not entitled for the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The claim of deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 27,19,052/- wrongly allowed for A.Y. 2010-11 is prejudicial to the interest of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the same was set aside for fresh adjudication after considering the aforesaid observations. Aggrieved by the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 , the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Ms. Aarti Sathe, by drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper book agitated the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 on legal grounds as well as on merits. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2) was duly considered by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and deduction was allowed with due application of mind and therefore, the jurisdiction u/s 263 was not justified. On merits, it has been submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial pronouncements cited before us. Upon perusal of the quantum assessment order, we find that no discussion, whatsoever, regarding assessee's eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80P(2) against interest income, has been made by Ld. AO and the order is silent in this regard. During assessment proceedings, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 12/09/2012 point number-14, had directed the assessee to file details of deduction u/s 80P claimed by it. The assessee's response, against the same, is extracted here-in-below:- 14. Details of Deduction u/s 80P: Society is registered under Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act. & has discontinued Banking business. Since cancellation of its license by RBI on 30.10.2003. Till the date of discontinuance of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner. Therefore, the order being clearly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue justifies invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263. 6. The Ld. AR, placing reliance on certain judicial pronouncements, contended that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) against interest income earned by the assessee since the same was integral part of assessee's business. The Ld. CIT-DR has controverted the same in the similar manner. However, at the stage, we are not concerned with the merits of the case since the issue has not, at all, been dealt with by Ld. AO, in any manner and the lower authorities have already clinched the issue on merits. Therefore, we refrain ourselves to delve into the merits of the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
