Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 17 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction u/s 80P(2) - whether interest earned on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)? - HELD THAT:- In the year under consideration, it is noted that the facts under consideration are pari-materia with that of A.Y 2012-13 where there is no surplus from the activity of providing premises on hire and assessee has reported a loss of Rs 105,899/- under the “mandap keeper’s head and which has been reduced from income in respect of which deduction has been claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and in effect, no deduction has been claimed in respect of such activity of providing premises on hire. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the AO has considered the aforesaid decision of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y 2012-13 while allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as apparent from the findings of the ld PCIT in the impugned order. PCIT has however held that in two Coordinate Bench decisions which have been relied upon by the ld CIT(A) in A.Y 2012-13, the Coordinate Benches have not correctly appreciated the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totjars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd vs ITO (supra) and reasoning so adopted by the Coordinate Benches are not acceptable to him. It is therefore a case where the Coordinate Benches have taken a view in the matter taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which has been followed in case of the assessee by the ld CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2012-13 and for the year under consideration, the AO follows the same however, the ld PCIT on identical set of facts reaches a different conclusion on appreciating the same set of decisions/authorities on the subject. AO has taken a plausible view in the matter and it may be that the ld PCIT holds a different point of view, thus, a view taken by the AO, being a plausible view taken by a quasi-judicial authority cannot be held as erroneous in nature unless it is unsustainable in eyes of law. Appeal of assessee allowed.
|