SADGURU NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT.SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9 (4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 366/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 February 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. It was also noted that the deduction under Section 80P for interest income from banks is a settled issue, and the Pr. CIT cannot replace the Assessing Officer's view with their own.

What were the facts?

The Principal CIT invoked Section 263 to revise the Assessing Officer's order, aiming to deny the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P on interest income from bank FDs. The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT's jurisdiction was invalid and that deduction under Section 80P is allowable for such interest.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the order denying deduction under Section 80P on interest income from bank FDs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Ganoo
Hearing: 04.02.2020Pronounced: 05.02.2020

ORDER

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Pr. CIT-5, Pune passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.12.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The Pr.CIT revised the order of the Assessing Officer with a view to deny the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of the interest income earned on FDs with Banks.

2.

Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the Pr. CIT assumed the jurisdiction for taxing the interest receipts received from the Cooperative Bank on the FDs kept by the assessee out of the excess funds. Further, ld. Counsel submitted that there are various decisions in favour of the assessee and granted deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Referring to the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal and others, ld. Counsel submitted that the deduction u/s 80-P of the Act is available in respect of the said interest receipts. Arguing that the Pr. CIT assumed jurisdiction invalidly, ld. AR mentioned that the Pr.CIT ignored the view taken by the Assessing Officer and attempts to review the order of the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act to thrust his view on the issue. Stating that the said jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT is incorrect, ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Sumitra Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat. Sanstha Maryadit vs. ITO (ITA No.1109/PUN/2017 dated 13.06.2018); (ii) ITO vs. Sureshdada Jain Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha (ITA No.589/PUN/2016 dated 28.11.2018); and, (iii) CCIT vs. Buchireddy Palem Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., 396 ITR 371. 3. Referring to the above cited decisions, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the deduction u/s 80-P of the Act is available in respect of the interest receipts. 4. We heard both the parties on this issue of Pr.CIT’s jurisdiction. It is a settled issue that the deduction is available u/s 80P of the Act in respect of the interest receipts from the Bank on FDs. Further, it is also a settled issue that the Assessing Officer’s view cannot be replaced by the view of the Pr.CIT. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement relied upon by the Pr.CIT is

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →