Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2, dated 02/03/2017 (in short “Ld. PCIT”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt.27/02/2015 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
The order passed u/s.263 of I.T. Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda-2 is bad in law and deserve to be quashed.
The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda-2 has erred in law and on facts in making disallowances of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.21,44,284/-. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.
2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on account of deduction allowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for Rs. 21,44,284.00 only.
The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a co-operative society and engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,44,284.00 under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which was allowed by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27th February 2015.
3.1 However, subsequently the learned PCIT was of the view that the assessee has been wrongly allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for Rs. 21,44,284.00 in view of the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act. Accordingly the learned PCIT vide his order dated 2 March 2017 held the assessment order as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
3.2 The assessee against the order of the learned PCIT preferred an appeal before us.
3.3 However, in the meantime, the AO in view of the direction of the learned PCIT framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and disallowed the deduction to the assessee claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for Rs. 21,44,284.00 vide order dated 23-06-2017.
3.4 The assessee against the order dated 23-06-2017 framed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who was pleased to grant the deduction to the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for Rs. 21,44,284 vide Appeal No. CIT (A)/ Vadodara- 2/10096/17-18 dated 29-5-2018. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:
“4.2.1 Since the facts are identical in the case of appellant also, I hold that merely because share capital and reserve exceeded Rs.1,00,000/- the appellant cannot be treated as co-operative bank u/s.80P(4) unless the appellant is engaged in providing credit facility to the persons other than members and has also obtained a bank licence from Reserve Bank of India. Since the appellant was providing credit facility to members only, it is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.”
In view of the above the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that there is no grievance to the assessee against the order of the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act as discussed above. Accordingly he submitted that the appeal filed against the order of the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act is not required to be adjudicated.
The learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the submissions made by the learned AR for the assessee. But he relied on the order of the ld. PCIT.
Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As there is no grievance to the assessee against the order of the learned PCIT as it got relief from the order of the learned CIT (A) as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee.
6.1 Before parting, we are conscious to the fact that neither the ld. AR nor the ld. DR before us has brought anything on record whether there was any appeal preferred by the Revenue before the ITAT against the order of the ld CIT-A vide Appeal No. CIT (A)/ Vadodara-2/10096/17-18 dated 29-5-2018. Assuming, if there is no appeal by the Revenue then the dispute in the present case has reached to its finality. Otherwise the dispute in the present appeal assumes importance. But at the same time we also note that the appeal if any preferred by the Revenue against the ld. CIT-A order in Appeal No. CIT (A)/ Vadodara-2/10096/17-18 dated 29-5-2018 would not be maintainable in the light of board circular No. 3 dated 11- 07-2018 on account of low effect as prescribed. Thus we safely assume that the order of the ld. CIT-A has reached to finality. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 05/02/2020 at Ahmedabad.