9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction in passing the order u/s 263, more so when the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr.CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s.143(3) directing to examine, verify and inquiry into the claim of Rs. 1,11,48,603/- made under chapter IV of Section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of interest income received from deposited in cooperative bank interest. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, bad in law and unjust. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here-innabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members by accepting deposits from its members. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring Nil income. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also gone through the orders of Lower Authorities. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the assessment order passed by AO is neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The deduction allowed under section 80-P(2)(d) by AO, in the assessment order under section 143(3) is not erroneous. The AO during the assessment, examined the issue in detail and took a reasonable and plausible view on the claim made by assessee. The examination of this issue is clearly discernible from the contents of assessment order. The ld.AR for assessee submits that ld. Pr. CIT by examining the record may have a different view, thus, the revision of order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is not valid for he has some other view. 6. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that for invoking power under section 263 of the Act, twin condition as prescribed under section 263 of the Act that order is erroneous and insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, must be fulfilled simultaneously. The assessment order passed by the AO is not at all erroneous. The order passed by AO is in accordance with the decision of various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals. The ld.AR of the assessee sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamitha Venalli Vs CITin ITA No. 609 & 610/ BNG/2014 dated 06/02/2015 * Solitaire CGHS Vs PCIT in ITA No. 3155/Mum/2019 dated 29-11-2019 * Sasme Co-op Society Vs PCIT in ITA No. 185/SRT/2020 dated 03/03/2021 * Begumpura Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 2799/AHD/2015/SRT dated 04/10/2018 * Sarjan Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT-1 in ITA No. 718/SRT/2018 dated 23/08/2021 * The Peoples Co-operative Credit Society Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1891/Ahd/2014 dated 23/03/2018 * Shri Basvaraj, CEO Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Ltd in ITA No. 867/Bang/2017 dated 31/05/2017 * ITO Vs M/s. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd in ITA No. 1491/Ahd/2012 dated 31/10/2012, * CIT v. Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 473 of 2014 dated 16-6-2014] * Pr. CIT v. Totgars Co-oprative Sales Society Ltd. [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169/392 ITR 74 (Ker.), * Totgars Cooprative Sales Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282/322 ITR 283 (SC), * Solitaire CGHS v. Pr. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3155 (Mum.) of 2019, dated 29-11-2017], 8. The ld.AR of the assessee finally submits that the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the twin condition as prescribed under section 263 of the Act, that order passed by AO is erroneous and insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be fulfilled simultaneously. 12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [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. 13. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (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. 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. 14. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
