Pr. CIT treated order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the reason that AO had wrongly accepted its section 80P(2)(a) deduction claim regading interest income of Rs. 14,04,405 derived from deposits made in the co-operative banks. Held: Interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank was eligible for claim of deduction under section 80OP(2)(a). Therefore, assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial.
IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH
S.S. GODARA, J.M. & DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M.
Dr. Jagadale Mama Hospital Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd. v. Pr. CIT
ITA No. 208/PUN/2022
29 August, 2022
Assessee by: Pratik Sandbhor
Revenue by: Naveen Gupta
S.S. Godara, J.M.
This assessees appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the Principal Commissioner, Pune-4, Punes Order dated 25-3-2022 passed in Case No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1041544329(1) in proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short the Act&
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. The assessees sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of learned Principal Commissioners revision directions holding the corresponding regular assessment dated 9-12-2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the assessing officer had wrongly accepted its section 80P (2) (a) deduction claim regarding interest income of Rs. 14,04,405 derived from deposits made in the co-operative banks.
3. Learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative vehemently supported the Principal Commissioners revision directions under challenge read as under:
6. I have examined the submission made by the assessee and issues involved. I have also gone through various, case laws filed and relied upon by the assessee in support of claim under section 80P (2) (a) (i) or 80P (2) (d) of the act. It is the submission of the assessee that, The assessing officer while passing the assessment order took a view in accordance with the judicial decisions of the Jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune. Consequently, when the assessment was taken up for sole reason of verifying the deduction under section 80P (2) (a) (i) of Income Tax Act 1961 and the assessing officer has duly raised queries in that respect and after considering the submission of the assessee taken a plausible view the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial; to the interest of revenue. The assessing officer cannot be faulted or the assessment order cannot be considered erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue when the assessing officer has passed an assessment order in accordance with the binding decision of Jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune.'