SAVANOOR PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's objections, which is bad in law. Therefore, the matter needs to be examined afresh by the PCIT.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an agricultural credit co-operative society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P. The PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, proposing disallowance of provision for interest and reserve for audit fees, and passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's objections.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 is valid when passed ex parte without considering the assessee's objections.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT999 citing431 ITR 1 · 2021 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE
Before: Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM
O R D E R
Per George George K, JM :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)’s order dated 30.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017.
There is a delay of 92 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of the assessee, stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for filing this appeal belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal and the delay cannot be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits.
The grounds raised read as follows:-
Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), passed under section 263 of the Act in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the appellant’s case.
2. The learned Pr.CIT erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the submission dated 14.03.2022 made by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Pr.CIT ought to have taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in re The Mavilayi Service Co-op Bank Ltd. v. CIT 431 ITR 1 (SC) on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned Pr.CIT is not justified in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned Pr.CIT had no requisite jurisdiction necessary to issue the impugned order and consequently the proceedings are bad at law on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also distribution of articles through public distribution system. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 15.10.2016 declaring `Nil’ total income after claiming deduction of Rs.43,22,848 u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 18.12.2018 by disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee and determining the Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd. income at Rs.43,22,850. Subsequently, the PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, proposing disallowance of provision for interest of Rs.9,66,066 debited in the profit and loss account along with Rs.50,000 debited towards reserve for audit fees. The PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 directing the A.O. to make de novo assessment after considering the above two issues mentioned. The PCIT passed ex parte order. The PCIT in para 3 of the impugned order held that the assessee has not made any submission to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. In light of the same, the PCIT had passed the ex parte order.
Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed objections to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act and copy of the acknowledgment was placed on record at page 4 of the paper book filed by the assessee. It was contended that the PCIT having passed the revisionary order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, without considering the objections of the assessee is bad in law and the same needs to be set aside.
The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the PCIT.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly in this case, the PCIT has passed ex parte order without taking into consideration the assessee’s objections, which has been filed before him on 14.03.2021. Copy of the acknowledgement of the same is Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd. placed on record at page 4 of the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined afresh by the PCIT after taking into consideration the objections raised by the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Bhagamandala Vss Bank Limited, Kodugu vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore12 Jul 2022Remanded
Also relies on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal, following its own precedent on identical facts, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo verification. The AO was directed to redo the assessment, disregarding the PCIT's observations a...
- M/S. Kokkada Primary Agricultural Credit… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PutturBangalore29 Oct 2021Remanded
Also relies on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the AO for de novo consideration, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the AO to e...
- M/S. Panaje Cabank Limited, Puttur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, PutturBangalore11 Oct 2021Remanded
Also relies on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, following a Supreme Court judgment on the definition of 'members'. It also directed the AO to ex...
- M/S. the Tappers Service Co-Operative… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2, UdupiBangalore20 Sept 2021Remanded
Also relies on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of Supreme Court judgments. The claim for deduction on interest income from investments was also ...
- Ramchandradada Kawade Punya Nagari Nagari… vs ITO 7(1), PunePune17 Apr 2026Allowed
Also relies on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary credit cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks, following pronouncements by ...
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026