9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve society and it has to be allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)( c)(i) so, it has got nothing to do with section 80A (5) of the Act.
We have considered the case laws brought on record by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee and we find that there are number of case laws supporting view that in case there is a mistake by Assessee for claiming legitimate deduction, the AO is duty bound to consider such legitimate deduction to the Assessee even if it was not claimed or claimed under wrong sections. No justification in the findings given by the Addl/JCIT (A) and so it cannot be sustained, thus Assessee's appeal on this issue is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciety in the remote Village of Himachal Pradesh and this Society is providing banking/credit facilities to its members. The returns have been filed by claiming deduction u/s 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 year after year and in the later and previous years, the same have been allowed without any dispute. 2. During the Asstt. Year 2018-19 and in earlier years, the Co-operative Society was totally depended upon their counsel for filing the Tax returns since all the members of the Society are un-educated and agriculturists only. 3. Actually, while filing the return for Asstt. Year 2018-19, the counsel of the assessee had wrongly claimed the deduction u/s 80 P (2) (c) and the same was processed u/s 143(1) 4. Though, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the similar facts:- i). National Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in ITA No.455/Chny/2024 vide order dated 24.06.2024 ii). S.R. Koshti Vs. CIT as reported in [2005] 2761. ITR 165 Gujrat High Court iii) ACIT vs. M/s Nikkamal Jewellers as reported in (2017) 59 ITR (Trib) 0116 (Chandigarh) So, it has been duly held in the above judgments, the assess should not be over assessed even if there is a mistake made by the assessee. As such the legitimate deduction for which the assessee is entitled should be allowed while determining the taxable income. In the instant case as well, the only inadvertent error made by the assessee is claiming the deduction under wrong clause, however, the deduction has always been allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered. It may be a fact that the Tribunal has allowed assessee's claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13. However, here is nothing on record to suggest that there was any violation of section 80A(5) of the Act. Therefore, the factual position based on which the decisions were rendered in assessment year 2010-11 and 2012-13 are different from the impugned assessment year. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in EBR Enterprises vs UOI (supra), we hold that the assesses cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, insofar as, the impugned assessment year is concerned due to non-fulfillment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
