ANNASAHEB PATIL MATHADI KAMGAR SAHAKAR PATPEDHI MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. CIT 13, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2774/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2009-107 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the order under Section 263 without considering all relevant submissions and documents. The CIT also failed to properly distinguish between a firm and a cooperative society and did not demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer allowed this claim. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, proposing to revise the assessment order, stating that the deduction was wrongly allowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT correctly exercised powers under Section 263 to revise an assessment order allowing Section 80P deduction, considering the assessee's status as a cooperative society and the evidence presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vanesh Kumar Nadar
Hearing: 12.05.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

Assessee by: Shri Vanesh Kumar Nadar Department by: Shri Sanjay Bahadur सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing: 12.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement:23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, A.Y. 2009-10 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“1. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in setting aside Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. (b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax – 13 was not passed in accordance with the provisions of law as he failed to consider all relevant submissions made before him.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has passed order u/s.263 of the Act in causal manner without considering all relevant facts stating the status of the appellant as firm instead of co-operative Society.

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has arbitrarily set aside Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer which was passed after due inquiry and following judgements available at the time of passing assessment order, without stating how the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

4.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax has failed to take into account the documents filed before the Assessing Officer by the appellant society relating to its claim u/s.80- P of the Act for deduction of the entire income from the activities of providing credit facilities to the members of the Society and other matters related thereto. 5. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to consider the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 24, Mumbai for A.Y.2010-11 in the case of appellant society wherein he has upheld the submissions made by the society as well as the 2 A.Y. 2009-10 findings of the Assessing Officer for A.Y.2009-10 having identical facts. (b) He has failed to follow the judicial decision cited before him of jurisdictional Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai having identical facts as of the appellant society as well as various other decisions on the impugned issue.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the proposal dated 12.12.2013 u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) was submitted by the ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai and the same was forwarded to the JT. CIT Rg.13(2) vide letter dated 13.12.2013. It was submitted in the said proposal that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act has wrongly been allowed to the assessee. The claim for similar deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y.2010-11 after doing through investigation. In the A.Y.2010-11 the basis for disallowance of the claim of the assessee was the letter received from the office of the

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →