Appeal allowed for lack of proper comparison with judgment under S.80P(2)(a)(i).

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes as the Tribunal found merit in the argument that a proper comparison of facts with a relevant judgment was necessary before upholding the denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal criticized the CIT (A) for failing to conduct a detailed comparison and analysis of facts as required, remanding the matter back for a fresh decision with proper reasoning and consideration of the cited judgment.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) by ld. CIT (A)
- Applicability of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT
- Failure to compare facts of present case with the facts of the cited case by ld. CIT (A)

Analysis:

1. Denial of Benefit of Deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i):
The appeal was filed against the order of ld. CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee contended that the denial of benefit of deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) was arbitrary and without proper application of mind. The appellant argued that as it was founded by the State Govt., the denial was unjustified. The CIT(A) was criticized for upholding the addition without proper reasoning and misdirecting himself. The appellant highlighted that the AO did not establish transactions with "NOMINATED" members or the general public, making the Supreme Court decision inapplicable. The appellant sought leave to amend grounds during the appeal.

2. Applicability of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court:
The ld. AR of the assessee argued that the CIT (A) failed to compare the facts of the present case with The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The AR contended that without such a comparison, the order was not sustainable. The matter was requested to be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on a detailed comparison of facts. The ld. DR of revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, but the Tribunal found merit in the argument that a proper comparison was necessary before following any judgment.

3. Failure to Compare Facts by ld. CIT (A):
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, agreed with the assessee's contention that the CIT (A) did not discuss and compare the facts of the present case with The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT judgment. It was emphasized that before following any judgment, a thorough analysis and comparison of facts were essential. As the CIT (A) failed to do so, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a speaking and reasoned order after comparing the facts of both cases and allowing both sides adequate opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a detailed comparison of facts in legal judgments for a just decision.

---