TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of interest income received from Co-operative Bank. The assessee has also raised another ground against rejection of assessee's claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a Co-operative Housing society. The assessee had deposit accounts with M/s. Shamrao Vithall Co-Operative Bank Ltd. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had received interest income of Rs. 3,79,520/- from the deposits with the aforesaid Bank. In the return of income the assessee did not disclose the aforesaid interest income. On the basis of AIR information, in scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer proposed to make addition of the aforesaid interest income. The assessee objected to it on the ground that the interest income from a Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. To support its claim the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Lands End Co-operative Housing Society vs. ITO decided on 15/01/2016 in ITA No.3566/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal return was filed belatedly. Nevertheless the claim was made by filing fresh computation at the time of assessment proceedings and subsequently by way of additional ground before the CIT(A) To support his arguments the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 2. National Thermal Power Company Ltd.Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) 3. CIT vs.Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) 4. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. 90 ITR 236 (All) 5. Solaris Bio-Chemicals vs. DCIT, TS-5929-ITAT-2012(Del) 4.2 On merits of allowability of assessee's claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Co-operative bank, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in various decisions has held that interest received from Co-operative Bank qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act . In support of his contention the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: 1. ITO Vs. Kulswamy Co-operative Society in ITA No.6790/Mum/2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder." A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that where claim of deduction under section 10A/10AA/10B/10BA or any provisions of Chapter VIC is not made in the return of income, the deduction shall not be allowed to the assessee. In the present case the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income from Co-operative Bank by way of note during assessment proceedings. Section 80P falls under Chapter VI-C, therefore, the provisions of section 80A(5) precludes the assessee to make claim of deduction under section 80P from any other mode other than the return of income. 8. It would be relevant to mention here that this appeal was refixed for hearing especially to give an opportunity to the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee to make his submissions to counter the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee filed a Paper Book giving written submissions and giving list of case laws primarily on admission of additional ground and new claim legally admissible during appellate proceedings. 9. There is no denying the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India reported as 415 ITR 139 in somewhat similar issue wherein assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) was rejected by invoking the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act as the said claim was not made in the return of income dismissed the writ petition by observing as under:- "6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in Section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such claim was made before the Assessing Officer, if from the facts on record, the Petitioners could sustain the said claim in law. This is very clear from the series of Judgments of various High Courts. Reference can be made to the decision of High Court of Gujarat in case of C. Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 224/122 ITR 610 In the said decision, the Court held that: 'it is clear that under Section 264, the CIT is empowered to exercise revisional powers in favour of the assessee. In exercise of this power, the CIT may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee, call for the record of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g de hors the IT Act, if he gives relief to the assessee in a case where it is proved to his satisfaction that there is over-assessment, whether such over-assessment is due to a mistake detected by the assessee after completion of assessment or otherwise. In our opinion, the CIT has misconstrued the words "subject to the provisions of this Act" in S. 264 (1) and read a restriction on his revisional power which does not exist. The CIT was, therefore, not right in holding that it was not open to him to give relief to the Petitioner on account of the Petitioner 's own mistake which it detected after the assessment was completed. Once it is found that there was a mistake in making an assessment, the CIT had power to correct it under S. 264 (1). In our opinion, therefore, the CIT was wrong in not giving relief to the Petitioner in respect of over-assessment as a result of under-totalling of the purchases to the extent of Rs. 20,000.' 7. This was reiterated in case of Ramdev Exports v. CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 315/[2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj.) This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166 has taken a similar view. ....