THE ST. SEBASTIAN HOMES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

Assessee by Shri Bhavesh Jain Revenue by Shri Nagnath Bhimarao Pasale, Sr. AR सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing 12.11.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 13.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1. In the facts and cirucumstance of the case and especially in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the facts, documents and submissions of the appellant case and instead mentioning the facts/content and names of some other unconnected appellant.

2. Without prejudice to above and in the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by passing the erred by passing the erroneous impugned order without considering the facts of appellant case and without appreciating that 3 ITAT in favour of the appellant have been earlier passed on same set of facts thereby this being a covered case.

2. Ground -1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the CIT(A) in passing the impugned order without considering the facts, documents and submissions of the assessee. In this regard we have heard the counsels of both the parties and perused the material placed on record, orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the facts, we noticed that in the present case the assessee being a cooperative society had claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned by the society on investment made with cooperative banks but Ld.AO disallowed the said claim and treated the interest and dividend received by the assessee from cooperative bank as income from other sources vide order dated 08.08.2022.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal but the same was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) against which the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

4. On perusal of the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A), we find that Ld.CIT(A) has narrated and discussed the facts of some other case, which are not related to the assessee and is not emanating from the order of the Ld.AO and do not relate to the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus stands quashed.