THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. MUDAVANMUKAL SERVICE CO-P BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

The Revenue’s former substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s interest income of Rs.27,31,485/- derived from deposits made in cooperative societies as eligible for sec.80P(2) deduction. It’s case is that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the same as income from “other” sources as per [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., vs. ITO. We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant former grievance as hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s latest decisionin PCIT vs. Peroorkada Service Cooperative Bank [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Kerala) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. The former substantive ground fails in very terms.

Learned DR next submits that the Assessing Officer had rightly made sec.68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.2,63,98,320/- in assessee’s hands representing difference in closing and opening balances of fixed deposits in it’s balance-sheet which has wrongly deleted in the lower appellate discussion. We find from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings in paras 6.36 to 7 in pages 12 to 14 that the learned CIT(A) has nowhere considered the relevant . Mudavanmukal SCB Ltd. factual matrix in light of sec.250(6) of the Act requiring him to prove point(s) of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the Revenue’s instant latter substantive ground back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.