Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
Assessment Year - 2012-2013 Mudavanmukal Service Co- vs. The Income Tax Officer, operative Bank Ltd. Poojappura, Mudavanmukal Ward 2(1), Trivandrum – 695 012. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PAN AAAAM4578Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, SR DR Assessee by : Sri Adithya Unnikrishnan, CA Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.11. 2024 ORDER PER BENCH : This Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.470/Coch/2023, for assessment year 2012-2013 arises out of the order of the learned CIT(A)-NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1052557181(1) dated 03.05.2023 in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
. Mudavanmukal SCB Ltd.
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.