Tribunal upholds disallowances by AO & CIT, remands section 80P deduction issue for reconsideration.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, dismissing certain grounds as not pressed. It upheld the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on provisions towards additional interest and funds. The issue concerning the deduction under section 80P was remanded to the AO for reconsideration, following the Tribunal's decision that a new claim can be made before appellate authorities, citing precedent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of additional evidences by CIT (A).
2. Non-consideration of revised return filed in response to section 148.
3. Disallowance of Rs.99,95,270/- towards additional interest provision on compulsory thrift deposits.
4. Disallowance of Rs.58,96,831/- towards additional interest provision on RID CTD.
5. Disallowance of reserve fund, education fund, and common fund debited to P&L A/c.
6. Non-allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Additional Evidences by CIT (A):
The learned CIT (A) did not consider the additional evidences submitted by the assessee during the appeal proceedings, stating that the case does not fall within the exceptions provided. This ground was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing, and therefore, it was dismissed.

2. Non-consideration of Revised Return Filed in Response to Section 148:
Similarly, the ground regarding the non-consideration of the revised return filed in response to section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was also not pressed by the assessee during the hearing and was dismissed.

3. Disallowance of Rs.99,95,270/- Towards Additional Interest Provision on Compulsory Thrift Deposits:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the provision of Rs.99,95,270/- towards additional interest on compulsory thrift deposits (CTDs), considering it as an appropriation of profits rather than an allowable expense. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order, noting that the provision was not out of income derived from utilizing the thrift deposits but from income earned from all sources, including share capital and reserves.

4. Disallowance of Rs.58,96,831/- Towards Additional Interest Provision on RID CTD:
The AO also disallowed Rs.58,96,831/- towards additional interest provision on Reinvestment Deposit of CTDs (RID CTD), treating it similarly as an appropriation of profits. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT (A)'s decision.

5. Disallowance of Reserve Fund, Education Fund, and Common Fund Debited to P&L A/c:
The AO disallowed the amounts debited towards the reserve fund, education fund, and common fund, as these were considered appropriations of profits. The CIT (A) upheld these disallowances, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order.

6. Non-allowance of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the CIT (A)'s decision to not allow the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) rejected this ground on the basis that it was a new claim not raised before the AO and that the additional evidences were not admitted. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they had been allowed this deduction in previous years. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd, the Tribunal held that the assessee can make a new claim before the appellate authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to consider the claim of deduction u/s 80P, directing the AO to decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, dismissing certain grounds as not pressed and upholding the disallowances made by the AO and CIT (A) on the provisions towards additional interest and funds. The issue regarding the deduction u/s 80P was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.

---