9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 143(3) of the Act on 18.02.2016. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that assessee derived interest income from savings bank account with HDFC Bank and UTI Bank. The AO was of the view that as per section 80P(2)(a)(d) of the Act, the interest earned out of the investment /deposits Co-op Societies or Co-operative Banks are only eligible for deduction. The interest income earned from other banks, are not eligible for deduction under section 80P. The assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 12,497/- from the other than Co-operative Banks are not eligible for deduction 80P(2)(d) of the Act and accordingly disallowed Rs. 12,497/-. 3. The assessment order was revised by ld. PCIT vide its order passed under section 263 of the Act dated 26.03.2019 by taking view that order passed by AO is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. PCIT before revising the order issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 06.03.2019. In the show cause notice, the ld. PCIT noted that on perusal of assessment order, Profit and Loss account, Balance Sheet it was noted that assessee earned interest of Rs. 6.14 crore on deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Cooperative Bank under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Cooperative Societies and Co-operative Banks are two separate entities and Cooperative Banks are not species of genes Cooperative Societies. The assessment orders dated 18.10.2016 was set-aside and the AO was directed to pass the assessment order afresh by giving opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submission of learned authorized representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income tax-Departmental representative (ld.CIT-DR) for the Revenue and perused the assessment order as well as order passed by ld. PCIT. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the order passed by assessing officer under section 143(3) in allowing deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is not erroneous. The assessing officer during the assessment examined the issue in detail and took a possible and a reasonable view on the claim made by assessee. The finding of the assessing officer in the assessment order about the examination of this issue is clearly discernable. The learned PCIT by examining the record, may have a diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 80P(2)(d). The learned AR of the assessee further submits he has also furnished his written submission and the same may be considered in support of his various other submissions. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: * Surat Vankar Sahkari Sangh Vs ACIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 169 (Gujarat), * CIT Vs Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union ( Tax Appeal No. 473 of 2014 dated 16/06/2014, * Merwanjee Cama Park Co-operative Housing Society Vs ITA in ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, * Kanilndass Udyog Bhawan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ITO [2018) taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai Trib), * Veer Cooprative Groupm Housing Society Vs ITO [2018] 67 ITR (trib) ITAT (Del), * PCIT Vs Totgars Co-oprative Sales Society ltd. [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169(Knt), * Totgars Cooprative Sales Society ltd Vs ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC), * The Uttar Gujarat Uma Co-operative Society Vs ITO (ITA No. 1670 &1671/Ahd/2018 dated 28/02/2019, * Menasi Seemeya group Gramagala Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamitha Venalli Vs CIT (ITA No. 609 & 610/ BNG/2014 dated 06/02/2015, * Solitaire CGHS Vs PCIT (ITA No. 3155/Mum/2019), * Sasme Co-op S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowability of deduction under section 80(P)(2)(d) and passed the assessment order, thus, the Assessing Officer has taken a reasonable and possible view which cannot be held as erroneous. 15. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sales Society [2017] 78 taxman.com 169 (Karnataka) held that for the purpose of section 80P(2)(d) a Co-operative Bank should be considered by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
