SAMATA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSHTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 763/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)6 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 issue of Section 80P deduction in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P. The PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding the Assessing Officer's assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for not properly examining the Section 80P deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified when a coordinate bench had previously ruled on a similar issue in the assessee's favor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 80P,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bhagwat
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Hearing: 11.06.2024Pronounced: 03.07.2024

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by LD PCIT, Pune-4 for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The learned PCIT erred in initiating action u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act even though the assessing officer's assessment order under sec 143 (3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2) The learned PCIT erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the order of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2017-2018 in reaching the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's allowance of deduction u/s 80P was incorrect. 3) The learned PCIT's order under section 263 be set aside and cancelled. 4) Such other orders be passed as deemed fit and proper. 5) The appellant prays for leave to add to, alter or modify its grounds of appeal and lead evidence.”

3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society, formed under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, engaged in the business of providing credit facility to its members by accepting deposits & advances from its members and advancing loans to its members. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed on 31/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,37,380/- after claiming deduction under u/s 80P of the IT Act for Rs.2,00,03,800/-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 22/08/2019 by CPC, Bengaluru at a total income of Rs.3,09,220/- after making some prima-facie adjustment / disallowances u/s 36 of the IT Act as there was difference in Schedule Part A-OI, Sl. No.6. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Investments/Advances/Loans, and Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VIA”. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the IT Act on 05.04.2021 by National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,09,220/-. 3.1 Subsequently, on review of the assessment records, the ld. PCIT Pune (4) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not even commented upon the fact as to whether assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) or any other specific sub-section. He has simply held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P. Failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in examining the above issue has rendered the assessment order dated 05.04.2021 erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This has resulted in under assessment of income to the tune of Rs.4,74,23,863/- and consequent short levy of tax. In view of the above, a show case notice was issued to the assessee on 21.01.2023 u/s 263 of the IT Act calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order dated 05.04.2021 should not be set aside u/s 263 of the IT Act. In response to above show-cause notice, the assessee filed a detailed submission. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, LD PCIT Pune (4), formed an opinion that the assessment order dated 05-04-2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the Act & therefore vide order dated 11.03.2024 be set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act & pass fresh assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

Being aggrieved with the above decision of Ld. PCIT, Pune (4) the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

LD AR submitted before us that the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the case of assessee himself is no more res integra because in the case of assessee himself for assessment year 2017-18 a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in order dated 21-12-2022 has already cancelled the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act, through which the assessment order was set-aside for re-examination of the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P2(a)(i) & u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. In the light of above decision in the case of assessee himself Ld counsel of the assessee requested before the bench to set-aside / cancel the order dated 11-03-2024 passed u/s 263 of the IT Act by LD CIT Pune (4).

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →