9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matrix lead us to conclude that the case falls under the category of ‘no inquiry’ rather than ‘lack of inquiry’ or ‘inadequate inquiry’ as contended by Ld. AR. In such a case, the reliance placed by Ld. AR on various judicial pronouncements could not help the assessee, in any manner. Therefore, the order being clearly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue justifies invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263. - Decided against assessee. - I .T.A. No. 3030/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2018 - Shri C. N. Prasad, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM Revenue by : Shishir Dhamija, Ld. CIT DR Assessee by : Aarti Sathe, Ld.AR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in as much as there is nothing erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which has been pointed out in the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. 5. The C.I.T. erred in setting aside the order of assessment and in directing to make a fresh assessment as the twin conditions viz. (i) The order is erroneous and (ii) is also causing prejudice to the Revenue must have been satisfied before the revisional powers under section 263 of the Act invoked by the C.I.T 6. The C.I.T erred in not appearing that the deduction under section 80 (P) (2) (a) (i) of the Act was rightly availed by the Appellant, as even though its banking license was cancelled, it is continued its activity as a co-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessed u/s 143(3) on 22/01/2013 by Ld. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai accepting returned income of Nil as e-filed by the assessee on 04/10/2010. The quantum assessment order records a finding that the assessee was a multi state cooperative bank. However, RBI cancelled its license to operate as banking institution with effect from 30/10/2003 and accordingly, the assessee had stopped operations as a banking organization but exists as a multi state cooperative society and still continues lending / credit facilities extended by them in earlier years. The assessee earned interest income of ₹ 323.93 Lacs from loans advances. It also earned interest of ₹ 159.50 Lacs on inter-bank deposits parked with ICICI Bank, Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature of assessee s business. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs Jafari Momin Vikas Coop Credit Society to submit that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was available to the assessee. However, Ld. CIT opined that the issue of deductibility of interest income was not, at all, looked into by Ld. AO and the deduction u/s 80P(2) has been granted in a mechanical manner without looking into the details of the nature of income since the Ld. AO failed to analyze which clause of Section 80P(2) was applicable to the case of the assessee which makes the order erroneous. The Ld. CIT further opined that since the assessee was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, its claim fall under Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the order was rightly subjected to revision u/s 263 which was the only course available to the revenue. 4. At the outset, certain typographical errors have been noted by us in the impugned order of Ld. CIT. The correct amount of interest income earned by the assessee during impugned AY is ₹ 1,59,50,158/- which is wrongly noted as ₹ 27,19,052/- in the show cause notice as extracted here-in-abve. The revenue has already clarified the same vide letter dated 07/10/2015 along with supporting documents. We find the same in order. Secondly, the quantum assessment order has been passed on 22/01/2013 the date of which has wrongly been referred to as 25.03.2013 / 28.03.2014 at various places in the impugned order and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Liquidation and Shri J.N.L.Srivastava, I.A.S. (Retd.) had been appointed from 2005. After the date of cancellation of our Banking License we have not undertaken any activity and thus qualifying for provisions U/s 176(3)(a). Besides above, there is no other material / explanation on record which suggests any further discussion on the issue under hand. After going the same, we find that the justification of claiming deduction against bank interest has neither been adduced / substantiated by the assessee nor being examined / verified by the Ld. AO. Nothing on record suggests any application of mind on the issue by Ld. AO. This being the case, we find no force in the submissions of Ld. AR that the issue was examined by Ld. AO with du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
