INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURDWAN vs. PANCHRA UNION CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, BURDWAN

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT Date of concluding the hearing : August 27, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August 28, 2024

ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 and 2018-19 are directed against the two separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated & 518/Kol/2024 Panchra Union Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Limited 31.10.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.12.2019 and 09.03.2021, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act in spite of the fact that the assessee-society had claimed interest income, (by investing surplus or idle funds) earned on F.D/T.D as profit and gains of business. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed in the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd vs ITO (2010) case to treat such interest income u/s 56 of the Act. 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the amount of Rs.58,53,100/- added back to the total income of the assessee for receiving in cash Rs.20,000/- or above in single transaction. 4 The appellant craved leave to make any amend, addition, alteration, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.

3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 518/Kol/2024:

“1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act in spite of the fact that the assessee-society had claimed interest income, (by investing surplus or idle funds) earned on F.D/T.D as profit and gains of business. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed in the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd vs ITO (2010) case to treat such interest income u/s 56 of the Act.