TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had indeed placed the copies of scrutiny assessment orders for the immediately preceding two assessment years before the ld AO, wherein under identical facts and circumstances AO had accepted the fact that interest received from a co-operative bank would be eligible for deduction u /s 80P - AO could not have taken any other view in the matter while framing the assessment as he is bound to apply the rule of consistency. When the rule of consistency has been applied by the ld AO, his order cannot be termed as erroneous without bringing any fresh facts on record. PCIT had not brought any evidence on record to prove that the facts prevailing in Asst Yea₹ 2013-14 and 2014-15 were different from that of facts prevailing in the year un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 143(2) of the Act. In the said notice, the deduction claimed by the asssessee under Chapter VI of the Act was directed to be examined by the ld AO. Accordingly, the ld AO issued thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 20.6.2017 asking for the relevant details :- Question No. 3 Please file head wise break up of income earned with note thereon. Question No. 6 Please furnish details of all the expenditure debited in Profit Loss accounts in following format : S.No. Name PAN Address Amount Nature of Expense TDS deducted Date of Payment Question No. 7 Please file complete details of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA with necessary supporting evidences. Question No. 9- Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lete the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 16.8.2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs Nil after allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Infact the ld AO even made an addition towards interest income of ₹ 10,695/- from M/s BEST and granted deduction u/s 80P of the Act even for that interest of ₹ 10,695/- and completed the assessment. 3.3. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT on the ground that the ld AO had not undertaken sufficient enquiries a) to determine the true character and nature of the income b) to determine whether the investment of funds were a business activity of the assessee or idle surplus funds were invested making them ineligible of deduction u/s 80P c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have taken any other view in the matter while framing the assessment as he is bound to apply the rule of consistency. When the rule of consistency has been applied by the ld AO, his order cannot be termed as erroneous without bringing any fresh facts on record. The ld PCIT had not brought any evidence on record to prove that the facts prevailing in Asst Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were different from that of facts prevailing in the year under consideration. Hence in our considered opinion, the conclusion of the ld PCIT that no enquiries were indeed carried out by the ld AO cannot be accepted and hence the revision order passed by him u/s 263 of the Act is hereby quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Department were heard before Your Honours on June 2, 2021. One of the grounds of appeal raised by the Department in all three appeals is regarding allowability of deduction u/s. SOP claimed by the Respondent Assessee. During the course of the hearing, our learned authorized representative Mr. Yogesh Thar had argued that insofar as claim of deduction u/s. SOP of the Act is concerned, the same is covered in Assessee's favour by the decision of the Hon Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in Assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 896/M/2016, order dated February 17, 2017 (copy has been already filed in the factual paperbook on 21.05.2021). 2. During the course of the hearing, it fell from the Hon Bench that there is a rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar is the ratio of the decisions of the Hon Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in following cases; 6.1. Land End Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (46 CCH 52) (Mum); 6.2. Sea Green Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 1343/M/17, order dated 31.03.2017) (Mum); 6.3. Merwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 6139/M/14, order dated 27.09.2017) (Mum); 6.4. ITO v. Ashoka Apt. C.H.S. Ltd. (ITA No. 2845/M/10) (Mum); 6.5. ITO v. Sagar Sanjog C.H.S. Ltd. (ITA No. 1972-74/M/2005)(Mum); 6.6. ITO v. Pancharatna Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. (ITA 2858/Mum/2010) (Mum) 7. In view of the foregoing as also the decision in Appellant's own case for AY 2011-12, the Respondent Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
