Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘D’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘D’
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1873/Ahd/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2013-14
The Classic Cooperative Bank Vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(4) Ahmedabad. Ltd. Nr. Punjabi Hall Shrey Hospital Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad. PAN : AAAJT 0169 K
अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �त् यथ�/ (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Sagar Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri B.P.Srivastava, Sr.DR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 10/01/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 11/01/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 30.5.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding finding of the AO
ITA No.1873/Ahd/2017 2 that the assessee is not entitled for deduction amounting to Rs.7,70,959/- under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the assessee was earlier a cooperative bank, but subsequently, its licence was cancelled by Reserve Bank of India, hence, it is being assessed in the status of credit society. It has filed its return of income declaring NIL income on 13.2.2014. The ld.AO has gone through the record and observed that the assessee earned interest income amounting to Rs.7,70,959/- on deposits with Gujarat State Cooperative Bank. The ld.AO has held that this interest income doesn’t qualify for grant of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly he disallowed this deduction and made addition. Appeal to the ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the assessee has not claimed any deduction in the computation of income. Hence, there could not be any disallowance at the end of the AO. On the other hand, ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO.
On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has not placed on record copy of computation of income. Though, the ld.counsel for the assessee is possessing acknowledgement which was produced before us, but from this acknowledgement, complete details of the income computed by the assessee for the purpose of taxation are not discernible. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for verification. The ld.AO shall examine computation of income and if it reveals that no deduction under section 80P(2)(d) qua this interest income is claimed by the assessee, then there could not be any
ITA No.1873/Ahd/2017 3 disallowance because that will amount to double disallowance. Once the assessee has not claimed; twice the AO himself has carved out this amount and made addition. In case if such deduction is not claimed in computation of income, then no disallowance be made to the total income of the assessee. The AO shall decide the issue in accordance with law.
It is to mention here that observation made by us will not impair or injure the case of the AO nor cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee in the set aside proceedings before the AO.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 11th January, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER