TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITAT CHENNAI] and ITAT Surat [ 2021 (5) TMI 446 - ITAT SURAT] Therefore, the AO has adopted a view which was one legally possible view. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case as held by Hon ble SC in the case of Amitabh Bachchan [ 2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] and Hon ble High Court [ 2008 (8) TMI 913 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] when two views are possible and AO adopts one view, the Assessment cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, the Pr.CIT has no power to invoke jurisdiction u/s.263 in such circumstances where the Assessment Order is not erroneous. Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed. - ITA No.404/CHNY/2022 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2022 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-President And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member For the Assessee : K.Meenakshisundaram - ITP For the Revenue : Shri M.Rajan CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Appellant Assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (Act) of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai-1, dated 26/03/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: The order under section 263 of the income tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) on following amounts: -Interest on fixed deposit with Co-Op Central bank Thanjavur Rs. 79,17,751/- -Interest on Saving Account with Co-Op Central bank Thanjavur Rs.72990/- 2.2 In addition to these the assessee had also claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(e), 80P(c) for various amounts mentioned in the order. 2.3 It has also been mentioned by the Assessing Officer(AO) in the assessment order that Assessee has submitted Ledger copies of the respective bank accounts in supports of the interest accrued on the fixed deposits and saving account. The Assessing Officer allowed the assessee s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d), u/s.80P(2)(e), u/s.80P(c) and assessed the income of the assessee at NIL. 2.4 However, the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai- 1(PCIT), issued notice u/s 263 of the Act to the assessee and after giving opportunity to the assessee, passed the order u/s 263 of the Act on 26/03/2022. Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal against the said order u/s 263. 2.5 ThePr.CIT has observed in the order u/s 263 as under : 3. OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER u/s 263 : 5. I have considered the written submissions of the assessee, in the light of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur District Central Cooperative Bank and kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank and completed the assessment accepting the income returned. 6. It is seen from the above that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue since the same has been passed without proper enquiry and verification of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Pr.CIT has invoked his powers of revision u/s.263. There are conditions which ought to be satisfied before invoking Section 263. Those are that the Assessment Order should be Erroneous and it should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For ready reference Section 263 of the Act is reproduced here under: 263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : 21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from. 5.2 The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : Quote, 8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Unquote. 5.3 The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd in IT Appeal No.1275 of 2017 vide order dated September 29, 2021 held as under : Quote , 7. In the order of PCIT it is stated in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e words of a large extent, and denotes a genus, whereas the word Co-operative Bank is a word of limited extent, which merely demarcates and identifies a particular species of the genus Co-operative Societies. Co-Operative Society can be of different nature, and can be involved in different activities; the Co-operative Society Bank is merely a variety of the Co-operative Societies. Thus the Cooperative Bank which is a species of the genus would necessarily be covered by the word Co-operative Society . 9. Furthermore, even according to Section 56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary Co-Operative Society bank as the meaning of Co-Operative Society. Therefore, a Cooperative Society Bank would be included in the words 'Cooperative Society'. 10. Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co-operative Society Bank. Therefore, according to Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, the said amount of interest earned from a Co-operative Society Bank would be deductible from the gross income of the Co-operative Society in order to assess its total income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction under section 80P(2)(d) in its show cause notice dated 6-3-2019. The assessee in its reply dated 7-3-2019 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. The assessee also explained that similar disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. 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. (emphasis added by us). 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 AssessingOfficer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
