IN THE ITAT INDORE

VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. & B.M. BIYANI, A.M.

Sankalp Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. Pr. CIT

ITA No.188/Ind/2023

30 January, 2024

Appellant by: Anil Kamal Garg, AR

Respondent by: Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.

This appeal by the by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27-3-2023 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 for Assessment Year.2018-19. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

Grounds of Income-Tax Appeal before the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, against the Order passed by the Iearned. Pr. Commissioner of Income- Tax -1, Indore, under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19.

1(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. Commissioner grossly erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') in the appellant's case without considering the material fact that the Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer, under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

1(b) That, the learned Pr. Commissioner grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without considering the material fact that during the course of the original assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer vide his notices dated 22-12-2020 and 19-1-2021, had specifically raised queries on the subject issue i.e. eligibility of the appellant to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act in respect of the interest income derived by it from deposits made with cooperative banks, and in response, the appellant had duly furnished the necessary explanation along with documentary evidences which were duly verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer after proper application of his mind and therefore, the invocation of the provisions of section 263 merely on the ground that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken some other view is not legally warranted and justifiable.

2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned Pr. Commissioner grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the impugned Order without considering and appreciating the appellant's detailed submission to the effect that it was fully eligible for making a claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act in respect of the interest income from deposits with cooperative banks under the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (2) to section 80P of the Act.