TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee from the receivables as on 31/3/2008 and the balance of receivables shown as on 31/3/2009 is ₹ 13,15,501/-. Hence the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the amended Form No. 26AS as well as these balances shown by the assessee as on 31/3/2008 as well as on 31/3/2009 on account of commission receivables and then to compute the difference, if any, to be added in the income of the assessee. Even if any addition to be made on account of difference between the receipts shown in the books and the receipts shown in the Form No. 26AS, the said amount would be eligible for deduction U/s 80P of the Act in view of the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2005-06. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity of collection of electricity and water bills of JVVNL/Public Health Department (PHD). The assessee received commission from these two government agencies against the services of collecting of electricity and water bills from the public/consumers. The assessee filed its return of income on 30th September, 2009 for net loss of ₹ 10,47,309/-. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has shown gross receipt at ₹ 5,69,748/- whereas as per the Form 26AS, total receipts for the year is ₹ 41,42,389/-. The assessee explained that the receipt reflected in the Form 26AS is already accounted in A.Y. 2008-09 as the contract for collecting the electricity/water bills on behalf of the JVVNL/PHD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26AS pertains to the earlier year. He has referred the amount as receivables as on 31/3/2008 at page No. 23 of the paper book shown in the balance sheet as on 31/3/2008 as well as the receivables as on 31/3/2009 as per the balance sheet as on 31/3/2009 and submitted that the differences of these two amounts of receivables on account of commission from PHED and RESB is the same as shown in the amended Form No. 26AS. Hence, the ld AR has submitted that the entire amount was already considered in the income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2008- 09 and therefore, no addition can be made for the year under consideration. Alternatively, the ld AR has submitted that since the assessee is eligible for deduction U/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential amount of ₹ 35,92,641/- while issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act. We find that the original Form No. 26AS shows the total receipts for the year under consideration at ₹ 41,62,389/-, which comprises an amount of ₹ 33,21,705/- from JVVNL. Subsequently an amended Form No. 26AS was issued wherein the amount of receipt from JVVNL was shown at ₹ 10,73,382/- as against the amount of ₹ 33,21,705/-. Therefore, there was a factual mistake in the amount shown in the original Form No. 26AS which was rectified subsequently and amount of ₹ 10,73,382/- was shown as the correct amount of receipt during the year. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) has considered this amended Form No. 26AS showi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acs. As we have already noted that the amount at about ₹ 15 lacs was received by the assessee from the receivables as on 31/3/2008 and the balance of receivables shown as on 31/3/2009 is ₹ 13,15,501/-. Hence the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the amended Form No. 26AS as well as these balances shown by the assessee as on 31/3/2008 as well as on 31/3/2009 on account of commission receivables and then to compute the difference, if any, to be added in the income of the assessee. 7. Further we find that in the A.Y. 2005-06, the Tribunal has considered the issue of eligibility of deduction U/s 80P(2) of the Act on the interest from FDR and held in para 4 as under: 4. We have heard the rival contentions and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits in another bank to add to the profit instead of lying idle necessarily ceased to be a part of the stock in trade of the bank or that interest arising therefrom did not form part of its business profits. Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that interest derived by the Cooperative Bank by putting the funds with some other bank will also form the part of its business profits. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of I.T.O. Vs. Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. 266 ITR 635, after considering above referred decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bihar State Cooperative Bank has held that income received out of reserve fund was exempted from payment of tax. Accordingly in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
