M/S METROPOLITAN PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOMET TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

The or hereina facts a in the merits 2. On fac the me the de receive 61,53, 3. CIT(A) incorre appella provisi 4. Your a deduct the pr substa held ti technic fulfilled 2. Briefly stated, operative premises s charges, sinking fun per bye laws of socie security charges and assessee filed origina further revised on Rs.13,75,000/-. The processed by the Cen adjustment was prop 80P(2)(d) of the Incom to Rs.61,53,751/-. I assessee submitted M/s. The Metrop ITA rder of the Commissioner of Income-ta after referred to as the "CIT (A)" is erron and in the law. On the facts and in the ci present case he ought to allow the ap of the case. cts and circumstances of the case and in erits of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in eduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of inte ed from Co-operative Bank to the t 757/-. erred in denying the deduction solel ect filing of the income tax return, ant being legally entitled to the deductio ions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. appellant further submits that the de tion based on a mere procedural lapse rinciples of natural justice and the antial justice. Courts and appellate auth me and again that tax benefits cannot b cal or minor procedural errors if the ta d the substantive conditions required by t facts of the case are that a ociety, is engaged in collection ds, and repair funds etc. from ety for various expenses such as d general upkeep of the society al return of income on 31.12.2 n 29.03.2022 declaring tot return of income filed by th ntral Processing Centre (CPC), posed for disallowing the deduct me-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the In response to the intimation that interest income was earne politan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 2 A No. 5298/MUM/2024 ax (Appeals), neous on the ircumstances ppeal on the n law and on not allowing erest income tune of Rs. ly based on despite the on under the enial of the contravenes doctrine of horities have be denied for axpayer has the law. assessee, a co- of maintenance its members as s housekeeping, y premises. The 2021 which was tal income at he assessee was Banguluru and tion claimed u/s Act’) amounting n proposed, the ed from deposit made with the co-op income earned from deduction u/s 80P(2) ordinate Bench of the CHS Ltd., ITA No. order passed u/s 14 the assessee was rej made. 3. On further app observing as under: “4.1.5 The ab On perusal of with the issu u/s. 143(3) o Premises Co-O No. 2 of abo Amore Comm inapplicable t appea agains 143(3) of the A is of Amore C with the imp aforesaid cas to the order d matter in re regarding inc operative ban screenshot of reproduced he 4. Aggrieved, the a the grounds as repro M/s. The Metrop ITA perative bank, which is deemed m the co-operative societies a )(d) of the Act relying on the dec e Tribunal in the case of ITO v. 786/Mum/2019. However, in 43(1) of the Act dated 03.11.202 jected and adjustment of Rs.6 peal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld bove case laws have been gone through f each order, it is noticed that all the cas ue raised in the assessment proceedings of the Act except one case viz. Amore Op Society Ltd. Vs. CPC, Bangalore men ove case laws. Therefore, all the case mercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd. are co to the instant case as the appellant has st intimation passed u/s.143(1) and not o Act. Therefore, the only case remains to b Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd pugned issue raised u/s. 143(1) of t se law has been perused. It is noticed tha dtd. 17-1-2023, the Hon'ble ITAT has adj espect of availability of deduction u/ come from investment of surplus funds nk. For the ease of reference and better f relevant portion of the aforemention ereunder:” assessee is in appeal before the T duced above. politan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 3 A No. 5298/MUM/2024 d to be interest and eligible for cision of the Co- . Oberoi Spring n the intimation 22, the claim of 61,53,751/- was the adjustment respectfully. se laws deal s undertaken Commercial ntioned at Sr. laws except onsidered as filed instant order passed be dealt with which deals the Act. The at vide para 9 judicated the /s. 80P(2)(d) in other co- r clarity, the ned order is Tribunal raising

We have heard perused the material adjustment proposed Section 143(1)(a) of th income filed by th reporting of interest noted that no income of the profit and lo ₹75,28,657/- was ref Based on its analys income did not inclu disallowed the deduc in its intimation o contended that the mistake in presenting of income. It was argu CPC failed to consid assessee to claim examined the matter assessee cannot be reporting of interest The intent and subs evidence, need to b procedural errors in M/s. The Metrop ITA d the rival submissions of bo l placed on record. The matter d by the Central Processing Cen he Act. The CPC, while processi he assessee, observed discrep t and dividend income. Specif e was offered under Serial Nos. oss account, while the gross t flected under Serial No. xiii of S sis, the CPC concluded that ude interest or dividend income ction claimed under Section 80P rder under Section 143(1)(a). disallowance arose due to g the interest and dividend inco ued before us that the adjustme der the factual position and th a legitimate deduction. We r and are of the opinion that t summarily rejected merely d and dividend income in the re stance of the claim, as well as be examined in detail. It is w reporting should not override politan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 4 A No. 5298/MUM/2024 oth parties and pertains to the ntre (CPC) under ing the return of pancies in the fically, the CPC 14(iii) and 14(iv) total income of Schedule DFLA. the gross total e and, therefore, P(2)(d) of the Act . The assessee an inadvertent ome in its return ent made by the he intent of the have carefully the claim of the due to incorrect eturn of income. the supporting well settled that the substantive rights of the taxpayer the claim of the as Officer (AO) after prov to clarify and substan the matter to the fil directed to: (i) Examine the cl ensuring that a by the assessee (ii) Examine the eli 80P(2)(d) of the 5.1 The AO is acco earned from cooperat of the Act and judicia assessee are allowed 6. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronounced in (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 23/01/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. M/s. The Metrop ITA r. The principle of natural justic ssessee be duly considered by viding a reasonable opportunity ntiate its claim. In view of the ab e of the AO for fresh adjudica aim of interest and dividend in all relevant evidence and explan are taken into account. igibility of the deduction claimed Act in accordance with the law. rdingly directed to decide the i tive banks after duly considerin al precedents, if any. The groun for statistical purposes. the appeal of the assessee n the open Court on 23/01/20 S CHAUHAN) (OM PRAK MEMBER ACCOUNTA politan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 5 A No. 5298/MUM/2024 ce demands that y the Assessing y to the assessee bove, we restore ation. The AO is ncome in detail, nations provided d under Section issue of interest ng the provisions ds raised by the is allowed for 025. KASH KANT) ANT MEMBER