AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case. 2. The CIT(A) should have found that the issue as regards claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is covered in favour of the appellant by a series of decisions relating to the assessments for years prior to A.Y. 2014- 15, not only by orders of appellate tribunal but by other relevant orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench and of the Division Bench of the High Court in appellant's own case. As such denial of exemption is illegal and unsustainable. 3. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of section 80P(2), 80P(2)(d), 80P(2)(a)(i) are covered in favour of the appellant as per series of judgments and order not only in the appellant's case but in similar case as well and as such the contrary view taken by CIT (A) as per the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. It is respectfully submitted that similar issues are pending before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, The High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several appeals and proceedings taken up by Co-operative Societies and banks like that of the petitioner and should be covered in favour of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned AR in this appeal are based on certain facts outside the Tribunal order dated 29.01.2018 and the same cannot be considered in the appeal against the order giving effect to the said appellate order. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that there is no merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR. As the appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 14.11.2018 was in compliance with the directions given in the Tribunal order for AY 2014-15, the CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the grounds raised against the same and hence, the same were dismissed. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR relied on the grounds raised. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the following case laws in support of the contention that relief not claimed in assessment proceedings cannot be granted by rectification if there were no materials on record to support the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the direction of the CIT(A) as per above order dated 27.11.2018. The order giving effect was passed on 18.12.2018 and the same should be considered to be erroneous in as much as the claim for deduction of Rs. 5,58,61,604/-was wrongly denied. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the denial of deduction of Rs. 5,58,61,604/- which was wrongly denied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.12.2019. 4. The CIT(A) while passing the order in ITA No. 630/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2018-19 erroneously found that the argument of the learned AR are based on certain facts outside the appellate order dated 27.11.2018 and the same cannot be considered in the appeal against the order giving effect to the said appellate order. The above finding is clearly erroneous and against the interest of the appellant. 5. The further finding is that the appeal effect order given by the assessing officer dated 18.12.2018 is in compliance with the directions given in the appellate order for 2015-16. There is no merit in the grounds raised and the same is also erroneous. The CIT (A) should have adjudicated the issue raised before him which is the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate order. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that there is no merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR. The CIT(A) held that as the appeal effect order given by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.12.2018 was in compliance with the directions given in the appellate order for AY 2015-16, there was no merit in the grounds raised against the same and hence, the same were dismissed. 11. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR relied on the grounds raised. 12. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, if the assessee is not granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. According to the Ld. AR, this alternative claim of the assessee is to be examined by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order. In the present case, the assessee had raised these issues before the CIT(A) vide Ground Nos. b), c) and d) which read as follows: b) The Assessing Officer failed to comply with the direction of the CIT(A) and m....