SHIVKRIPA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 29(3),
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, granting the assessee one more opportunity to provide explanations. This was done in the interest of natural justice, considering the assessee was not properly guided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P for interest income from banks and mutual funds, which was rejected by the AO. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO for this rejection.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee claims deduction under Section 80P and fails to provide proper explanation, and if an opportunity for fresh explanation should be granted.
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.
- Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka15 citing229 CTR 209 · 2010 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Sood
This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the CIT(A)-40, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010- 11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of `28.00 lakhs levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act").
The assessee is a credit co-operative society. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Act in respect of interest income received from banks and interest income received from Mutual Funds. The AO rejected the said claim. Penalty was levied by the AO on rejection of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in respect of the two items discussed above.
We heard the parties and perused record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty only for the reason that the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation with regard to the disallowance made by the AO.
Shivkripa Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd.
The learned A.R. submitted that the AO had made identical disallowances in earlier years but he did not levy any penalty thereon. Further the learned AO placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. 229 CTR 209 in support of his decision to levy penalty. The learned A.R. submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the assessee was having proper reasons for claiming the deduction u/s 80P of the Act against the two incomes referred above. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee was not properly guided in this matter and hence proper explanations were not given before the tax authorities. Accordingly he pleaded that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present proper explanations before the tax authorities against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The learned D.R. strongly supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A).
Having heard the rival submission we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to offer explanations before the tax authorities against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO for examining it afresh.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026