MANGALWEDHA LOKMANGAL GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 224/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 July 2022AY 2017-183 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revision jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of proper verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P. The PCIT found the assessment order erroneous as the AO did not verify if loans/deposits were properly accounted for before granting the deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 for not properly verifying the deduction claimed under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-03-2022 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune (‘PCIT’) for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee raised ground Nos. 1 to 7 amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the PCIT is justified in holding the assessment order dated 06-12-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

3.

At the outset, we note that the assessee is an AOP registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The basic objective of the societies is to accept deposits from its members and providing credit facilities to its members. The AO granted deduction under Chapter VIA regarding as claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P of the Act. The PCIT held that the AO did not verify loans/deposits taken are given back to the members as loans/advances or not. The assessment order does not indicate whether this exercise has been done or not. The PCIT discussed the said issue from Pages 6 to 9 and held the order of AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He directed the AO for proper verification of facts and to re-examine the assessee’s claim of deduction in respect of interest income of Rs.42,82,700/- u/s. 80P of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order dated 06-12-2019, we note that the AO did not discuss the issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as held by the PCIT which clearly shows that the AO did not examine the issue in detail, in our opinion, the order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of PCIT in exercising revision jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in holding the assessment order dated 06-12-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →