Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 670 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as granted by Ld. AO on account of interest received by assessee from cooperative bank was required to be denied - HELD THAT:- a specific query was raised by Ld. AO during original assessment proceedings regarding deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) which was duly responded to by the assessee. The decision of this Tribunal rendered in Lands End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2016 (2) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI] was brought to the notice of Ld. AO in support of the deduction. The Ld. AO was clinched with the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and assessee’s claim was allowed after due application of mind and a view was already taken in the matter. Therefore, the allegation of Ld. Pr. CIT that the deduction was allowed without verification and necessary inquires is bereft of any merits. We find that it not a case of ‘no inquiry’ but it is a case wherein a plausible / possible view has been taken by Ld. AO after due consideration of issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Whether the view taken by Ld. AO was in accordance with law or not ? - As it could be observed that there were two possible views on the issue at the time of framing of assessment. Dealing with similar conflicting position, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. V/s ITO [2018 (4) TMI 1678 - ITAT MUMBAI] relying upon the order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian V/s Siemens India Ltd. [1983 (4) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that where there are conflicting decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts then a view which is in favor of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Hence, the coordinate bench chose to took a view that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Similar favorable view has been taken in various subsequent decisions of this Tribunal which has already been tabulated by Ld. AR in the legal paper-book. In view of the fact that no decision of the jurisdictional High court holding the field is available, it could safely be concluded that the issue was a debatable one and the view taken by Ld.AO was one of the possible view which could not be said to be contrary to law. Therefore, the assessment order could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue which would require revision u/s 263. Thus the revisional jurisdiction as invoked by Ld. Pr. CIT could not be held to be valid under law. By quashing the order we allow assessee’s appeal.
|