Loading ITAT cases…
2 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, the Tribunal held that a mistaken understanding of legal provisions, as explained by the Revenue, constitutes a 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had indeed filed Form No. 8A in terms of Section 158AB and had deferred filing this appeal due to a mistaken understanding of the provision. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following multiple decisions of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which held that interest earned on deposits with banks, FDRs, and saving bank accounts is an integral part of the business activity of providing credit facilities to members and is therefore covered under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Revenue could not demonstrate that these ITAT decisions had been reversed by a higher forum. A co-ordinate bench of the ITAT had also upheld the CIT(A)'s order in similar appeals for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by previous judicial pronouncements in favour of the assessee and upheld the impugned order of the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the restriction under Section 13(1)(b) is not per se inapplicable to a 'charitable-cum-religious' trust, and the benefit to a particular community needs examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to provide the assessee an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(E).