9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and UP Cooperative Bank Ltd. are exempt u/s 80P(2)(1). Disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets as per section 32 of the Act and making the addition u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE - assessee has not filled the depreciation figure in the relevant column of ITR - HELD THAT:- Mentioning of depreciation figure in column No. 39 under the head Other expenses was a mistake, still, the depreciation figure together with the computation thereon had been enclosed and claimed properly by the assessee in the return of income. This figure of depreciation duly tallies with the depreciation figure mentioned in the P L Account of the assessee also. Hence, we do not appreciate the action of the lower authorities in disallowing the genuine claim of depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, and due to that, there was a delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Bench on earlier occasion had directed the assessee to file an affidavit from the concerned Secretary, who was taking care of the income-tax matters at the relevant point in time. This affidavit was filed by the concerned Secretary Mr. Sagirudin Siddique on 08.05.2023 before the bench which reads as under:- 3. In our considered opinion, there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before us in time. Hence we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 4. The ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of dividend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipts which had been claimed exempt in the computation of income. It was also observed by the Assessing Officer that the IFFCO from whom dividend was received was not a company but was a cooperative society and dividend distribution tax had not been deducted by IFFCO. It was held by the Assessing Officer that the dividend income was not exempt in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,82,02,860/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the dividend received from IFFCO is exempt u/s 80P(2)(1) of the Income Tax Act, as per the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence to the provisions of section 1150 and section 10(34) was not correct as the claim is admissible u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It may be submitted that the appellant is a cooperative society and the dividend paying concern i.e. Indian Farmer Fertilizer cooperative Ltd. is also a society. Since the dividend income derived by the appellant is from a concern which is also a cooperative society, the whole of such income is exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. It may very humbly be submitted that exactly similar issue had also arisen in the assessment year 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 where Ld. Predecessors and your honor had been pleased to accept the claim of the appellant. Copies of those decisions are enclosed herewith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td, which are cooperative society. As far as IFFCO is concerned, the fact that it is a cooperative society is an established fact in earlier years and this year also the A.O. has mentioned that it is a cooperative society. As far as the U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. is concerned, the A.O. has not mentioned anything about it. I have verified that it is cooperative society as is ascertainable from the Registration Certificate produced by the appellant and on my behest the appellant has also produced I.T. Return of the Bank wherein the status is mentioned to be cooperative society. Even otherwise it is not the case of the A.O. that U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a company. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,82,02,860/- being dividend received from the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia. The only reason adduced by the lower authorities for not allowing the depreciation was that the assessee has not filled the depreciation figure in the relevant column of ITR, i.e., in column No. 45 of the return in Part-A P L Account in the ITR form. We find that the assessee had mentioned the depreciation figure of Rs. 1,00,46,380/- under column No. 39 in sub-item No. 14 under the main head: Other expenses in the ITR. Though mentioning of depreciation figure in column No. 39 under the head Other expenses was a mistake, still, the depreciation figure together with the computation thereon had been enclosed and claimed properly by the assessee in the return of income. This figure of depreciation of Rs. 1,00,46,380/- duly tallies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
