2021 (4) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g under section 263 do not extend to sustain a principal Commissioner of income tax office to take a different view in the same matter. (5) The learned PCIT was driving by extraneous consideration in not dropping the proceeding under section 263." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a cooperative society and engaged in the activities of providing credit facilities to its members for purchase /import of yarn. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income at Nill. In the computation of income the assessee claim deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 2426581/-, on account of interest on deposit in a cooperative bank. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer after issuing statutory notices and considering the reply of assessee passed the assessment order under section 143(3) on 26th June 2017, accepting the return income. 3. The assessment order was revised by learned PCIT vide his order dated 16th March 2020 passed under section 263 of Income tax Act. The learned PCIT before passing the order under section 263, issued show cause notice dated 22nd January 2020, fixing the date of hearing on 30th January 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case) held that assessee is not entitled for the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The learned PCIT held that the assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 143 (3) on 18th June 2017 for assessment year 2015-16 is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT set aside assessment order and the assessing officer was directed to complete the assessment after taking into consideration the fact including the issue discussed by him after providing opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of learned PCIT the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 7. We have heard the submissions of learned authorized representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income tax-departmental representative (CIT-DR) for revenue and gone through the assessment order passed by assessing officer and the order of learned PCIT impugned before us. The learned AR of the assessee submit that the order passed by assessing officer while allowing deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is not erroneous. The assessing officer during the assessment examined the issue and took a possible and a reasonable view on the claim ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., vs. DCIT [2019] 111 taxmann.com 69 (Rajkot Tribunal) * Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., vs. ACIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 169 (Guj) * PCIT Vs Totagars Co-operative Sales Society [2017] 78 taxman.com 169 (Karnataka) * Gujarat JHM Hotels Ltd., vs. PCIT, ITA No.301/SRT/2018. * Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs. PCIT, [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Guj). * CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., [2007] 207 CTR 642 (Mad). * Ranka Jewellers Vs. Addl. CIT [2010] 38 DTR 293 (Bom). * Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom). * Skyline Builders Vs. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 182 (Ker). * CIT Vs. Sunil Lamba [2019] 412 ITR 480 (Delhi). * Siddh International Vs. CIT [2009] 19 DTR 281 (Ahd Trib.). * Shaileshbhai Shah Vs. ACIT [2005] 98 TTJ 154 (Ahd). * Jet Electronics Vs. ACIT [2008] 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd). * Gujarat Guardian Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2008] 11 DTR 370 (Delhi Tribunal). * Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Vs. CIT [2009] 22 DTR 164 (Delhi Tribunal). * Ajit Gupta Vs. ITO [2007] 108 TTJ 301 (Del). * P.N.Writer & Co. Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT [2006] 7 SOT 346 (Mum). * N.P.Santosh Kumar Vs. ACIT [2008] 12 DTR 87 (Cochin Tribunal). * Smt.Varanandhini Raghavan Vs. ITO [2005] 15 DTR 140 (Chennai Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 25.04.2017, and reply dated 23.02.2017 and copy of bank statement of interest income is available on record vide page no.13 to 31 of paper book. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 28.06.2017, admittedly, there is no reference about the contents of the reply furnished by assessee, however, in para 1 of the assessment order the reference of both the notices is clearly referred. The ld. PCIT before passing under section 263 of the Act, identified the issue regarding the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The assessee in its reply dated 15.02.2020 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. 11. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (supra) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. 12. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (supra) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that....