M/S. SRI GAYATHRI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HASSAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 624/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 October 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order in a similar case and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the facts in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning Section 80P deduction. The AO was also instructed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263. The assessee argued that the PCIT's order was bad in law, citing a similar case where the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's directions.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was valid and whether the AO should re-examine the allowability of deduction under Section 80P based on specific High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms Priscilla Singsit, CIT DR
Hearing: 22.10.2020Pronounced: 22.10.2020

O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against an order of learned PCIT Mysore dated 13.03.2020 passed by him u/s 263. 2. In this appeal, although as many as 9 grounds are raised by the assessee but the main effective grievance is this that the impugned order passed by PCIT is bad in law.

3.

In course of hearing, various arguments were raised by the learned AR of the assessee but this was his main argument that under similar facts, in the case of M/s Tibetan Rabgayling Primary Agricultural Credit Co Operative Society Limited in dated 08.10.2020 (copy submitted), as per para 9 of that tribunal order, the tribunal held that the AO should examine the facts in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co Op. Society Ltd., 236 Taxman 309 and of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Totgar Co Op. Sales Society Ltd., 322 ITR 283 and the directions of PCIT in that case were quashed. He submitted that in the present case also, similar order should be passed. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of PCIT passed by him u/s 263.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of M/s Tibetan Rabgayling Primary Agricultural Credit Co Operative Society Limited (Supra). Therefore, by respectfully following this tribunal order, we modify the directions of PCIT and direct the AO to examine the facts of the present case in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co Op. Society Ltd., 236 Taxman 309 and of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Totgar Co Op. Sales Society Ltd., 322 ITR 283 and decide the issue about allowability of deduction u/s 80P. Needless to say, the AO should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adequate opportunity to bring relevant material on record.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →