TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k was not liability of the assessee and it was assessee s own money and therefore, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. In the present case, a categorical finding was given by CIT(A) that the amount deposited in bank was surplus of the assessee and this is not the case of the revenue that amount was liability of the assessee. In the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra), it was noted that the amount which was invested was not the own money of the assessee but it was liability of the assessee society and therefore, the issue was decided against the assessee whereas in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), it was noticed that the money deposited in bank w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant under section 80 P [2] of the Act amounting to ₹ 8,96,580/- under the provisions of section 80 P [2][d] of the Act being the interest earned by the appellant on Deposits made by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80P of the Act allows the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities in making a claim of deduction, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the interest income earned by the appellant out of the deposits kept in the Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed in the interest of equity and justice. 3. This appeal is filed late by the assessee and the delay is of 77 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. In the same, it is stated that the order of CIT(A) order dated 29.06.2017 was received by the assessee on 14.08.2017 and therefore, the appeal against this order was to be filed before the Tribunal on or before 13.10.2017 but the same was filed on 28.12.2017 and therefore, there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. Regarding the reasons for this delay, it is submitted that soon after the receipt of this appellate order in August 2017, the assessee could not file the appeal in time because the Chartered Accountant was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. I have gone through the judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). I find that there is no conflict in these two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Both these judgments are on same line but ultimate conclusion is different because the facts are different. In the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra), it was noted that the amount which was invested was not the own money of the assessee but it was liability of the assessee society and therefore, the issue was decided against the assessee whereas in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
