TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders Pvt. Ltd [ 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the assessee can always make a new claim not made in return of income before the appellate authorities. Since in the instant case, the assessee was all along been granted deduction of section 80P benefit and a ground was also taken before the learned CIT (A), therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the claim of deduction u/s 80P - AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.99/Hyd/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, CA For the Revenue : Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Sr.DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2018 of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest on CTD A/c (Compulsory Thrift Deposit) being the provision of interest @5% on current year collections of Rs.2,49,88,176/- paid for the year by crediting individual members accounts. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that the society has debited additional interest RIDCTD(Reinvestment Deposit of CTDs i.e., opening balances of CTDs reinvested of Rs.58,96,831/- on being the provision of additional interest on current year collection of Rs.29,48,41,551/- (which are actually opening balances) @ 2% paid for the year in addition to provisions of 8% on the opening balances of Rs.29,48,41,551/- paid for the year. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly noted that the assessee has also deducted provision made towards Funds i.e., Reserve fund of Rs.83,662/-, Education Fund of Rs.1,00,000/- and common good fund of Rs.10,742/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the appropriation of profits towards funds should not be disallowed. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the above expenses by recording the following: 1. The provision of additional interest of Rs. 99,95,270/- @40% of current year colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 13. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT (A). 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by disallowing an amount of Rs.99,95,270/- being the provisions towards additional interest on CTDs and disallowing Rs.58,96,831/- being provision towards additional interest on RID of CTDs. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 16.3.2015 for the A.Y 2012-13. We find the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the A.Y 2010-11 on 21.3.2016 and while deciding identical issues, the assessee had filed revised return of income by offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the general method of accounting and filed the return without claiming the deduction u/s.80P of Income Tax Act, 1961. We are ignorant of that provision during the A. Y.2010-11. The learned A.O. added back the additional interest to the income offered. In this connection, we have taken the expert advice and offering additional interest paid as an income. Therefore, Therefore, we request your Hon'ble selves to allow deduction u/s 80P o the I.T. Act and complete the assessment. The revised computation of income filed by the assessee is as under: Profits and gains from business profession Rs.1,14,74,299 2 Income from other sources : Rs. 25,85,008 Gross total income Rs.1,40,59,307 Less: Deduction u/s.80P Rs.1,14,74,299 Taxable income Rs. 25,85,010 After verification of the assessee s submissions and the revised computation of income filed, the assessment is completed on the income declared as per the revised computation of income . 16. Similarly for the A.Y 2014-15, we find the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said ground taken before him on the ground that the assessee has not taken this claim before the Assessing Officer and has taken this ground for the first time and this amounts to a new claim in additional ground. He, therefore, did not permit the assessee to raise the new or additional ground even if this is a legal ground unless the material facts are available on record. The additional evidences filed before him were not admitted by him on the ground that these were not filed by the assessee during the original proceedings. The argument of the assessee that for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009-10 2013-14 the assessee had filed revised return offering certain income and claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act was allowed and therefore, the assessee should be allowed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act was not allowed by the learned CIT (A). It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was all along being allowed deduction u/s 80P by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the additional income declared by the assessee and therefore, the same should not be denied for the impugned A.Y. 19. We find sufficient force in the above arguments of the learned Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
