GOMATA GRAMIN BIGGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ALEPHATA,JUNNAR vs. ITO WARD (5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1449/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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 allowed the appeal, following its previous decision for the assessment year 2010-2011 where a similar claim for interest income from PDCC Bank was accepted. The Tribunal found no distinction pointed out by the Revenue in the present case.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of Rs. 31,29,733/- on interest income from investments made with PDCC and other banks. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) disallowed this deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from investments in cooperative banks, and whether past precedents should be followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 27.03.2024Pronounced: 16.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1057490299(1), dated 30.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in respect of deduction under section 80P of Rs.31,29,733/- so claimed by 2 ITA.No.1449/PUN./2023 the Appellant merely on ground that funds are invested with PDCC and other banks.

1.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has disposed the appeal ex-parte due to non compliance to notice issued under section 250. The Appellant claims that such non compliance is merely duo to mistake of the ex-counsel for which the Appellant should not be penalised in the interest of justice.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has disposed the appeal by simply relying the AO order in which the judgment of Hon'ble SC in case of Totgar's was applied without applying his independent opinion on facts of the case.

4. The Appellant craves to add, delete, insert, omits any ground or part of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities findings denying it’s sec.80P deduction claim of Rs.31,29,733/- representing interest income from investment(s) made with PDCC and other bank(s). Suffice to say, the clinching fact which has emerged during the course of hearing is that the very issue had arisen between the parties in the preceding assessment year 2010-2011 as well wherein the earlier learned coordinate bench’s order in ITA.No.1606/PUN./2018 decided on 23.09.2019 had rejected the Revenue’s stand regarding interest income loans “PDCC” Bank. It is made clear that there is no 3 ITA.No.1449/PUN./2023 distinction pin-pointed at the Revenue’s side in the course of hearing. Faced with this situation, I adopt judicial consistency to accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →