TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction in passing the order u/s 263, more so when the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr.CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s.143(3) directing to examine, verify and inquiry into the claim of Rs. 1,11,48,603/- made under chapter IV of Section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of interest income received from deposited in cooperative bank interest. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, bad in law and unjust. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here-innabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members by accepting deposits from its members. The assessee filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue. With the assistance of learned representative, we have also gone through the orders of Lower Authorities. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the assessment order passed by AO is neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The deduction allowed under section 80-P(2)(d) by AO, in the assessment order under section 143(3) is not erroneous. The AO during the assessment, examined the issue in detail and took a reasonable and plausible view on the claim made by assessee. The examination of this issue is clearly discernible from the contents of assessment order. The ld.AR for assessee submits that ld. Pr. CIT by examining the record may have a different view, thus, the revision of order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is not valid for he has some other view. 6. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that for invoking power under section 263 of the Act, twin condition as prescribed under section 263 of the Act that order is erroneous and insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, must be fulfilled simultaneously. The assessment order passed by the AO is not at all erroneous. The order passed by AO is in accordance with the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88/Del/2018 dated 04/09/2018 • The Uttar Gujarat Uma Co-operative Society Vs ITO in ITA No. 1670 & 1671/Ahd/2018 dated 28/02/2019 • Menasi Seemeya Group Gramagala Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamitha Venalli Vs CITin ITA No. 609 & 610/ BNG/2014 dated 06/02/2015 • Solitaire CGHS Vs PCIT in ITA No. 3155/Mum/2019 dated 29-11-2019 • Sasme Co-op Society Vs PCIT in ITA No. 185/SRT/2020 dated 03/03/2021 • Begumpura Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 2799/AHD/2015/SRT dated 04/10/2018 • Sarjan Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT-1 in ITA No. 718/SRT/2018 dated 23/08/2021 • The Peoples Co-operative Credit Society Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1891/Ahd/2014 dated 23/03/2018 • Shri Basvaraj, CEO Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Ltd in ITA No. 867/Bang/2017 dated 31/05/2017 • ITO Vs M/s. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd in ITA No. 1491/Ahd/2012 dated 31/10/2012, • CIT v. Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 473 of 2014 dated 16-6-2014] • Pr. CIT v. Totgars Co-oprative Sales Society Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pr.CIT. The ld. Pr. CIT took a different view that the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80-P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest income earned from Surat District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 11. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that for revising order under section 263 of the Act, the twin condition as prescribed under section 263 of the Act, that order passed by AO is erroneous and insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be fulfilled simultaneously. 12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) 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. 13. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under se....