INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2)(4), BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVP. BANK LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1226/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 April 20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had not considered the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to examine and compare the facts of the present case with the Apex Court's judgment and decide afresh.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A) had not considered a later judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) without considering a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

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, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri P. Dinesha, Advocate
Hearing: 26.03.2018Pronounced: 06.04.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-5, Bangalore dated 14.02.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - 5, Bangalore, is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether Ld.CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).

3. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal.”

3.

It was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that ld. CIT(A) has not considered the later judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co- operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT as reported in 397 ITR 1 and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO should be restored. As against this, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO/CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and this is true that ld. CIT (A) has not considered the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), in fact, the order of CIT (A) is dated 14.02.2017 and this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is dated 08.08.2017 and hence, this judgment was not available on 14.02.2017. Hence we feel it proper that the matter should go back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after considering this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. We set aside the order of CIT 9A) and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision with the direction that he should examine and compare the facts of the present case and the facts of this case and thereafter, decide the issue afresh and pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →