TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g section 143(3) regular assessment dated 14.06.2016 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue so far as the latter had accepted section 80P(2) deduction claim of Rs.17,89,671/- representing interest income derived from deposits kept with M/s. Yes Bank, Bank of Baroda and UCO Bank to the tune of Rs.1,27,960/-, Rs.11,76,964/- and Rs.4,84,747/-; respectively. The PCIT"s revision directions to this effect read as under:- "04. Decision: I have carefully gone through the submission of the assessee. As clearly brought out in notice u/s 263 reproduced in para 2 (supra), it is undeniable fact that enquiries prima facie- warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case pertaining to the deduction u/s 80P(2) amounti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. 06. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order dated 14/06/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the assessment is made without conducting enquiry prima facie warranted in respect of above-issue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to frame the assessment de novo after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard." 3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the PCIT"s revision directions. The Revenue more particularly argued that such an interest incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erative Federation of Housing Building Societies Ltd. 11 taxmann.com 448, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT 50 taxmann.com 278, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. 389 ITR 68 and the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/....