TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Farmers Service Co-operative Society, filed it's return of income in the status of AOP, for the A.Y.2017-18 on 31.03.2018, declaring NIL taxable income, after claiming deduction of entire income u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, to verify deduction under Chapter VIA. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') on 10.12.2019, by accepting the income returned by the assessee. Under the powers vested with the Ld.PCIT, as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, assessment records in the assessee's case for the A.Y.2017-18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment should not be revised. There was no compliance from the assessee for the show cause notice issued followed by another letter dated 11.02.2022 through ITBA module, explaining the assessee of the consequences for non-compliance to the letter. However, the assessee did not comply with the letter also. Hence, the Ld.PCIT passed the revisional order based the material available on record and held that in view of Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the assessment order passed by the AO is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, directed the AO to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the extent of 10,.83,130/- being the interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l income and eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. 5) The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought not have narrowly interpreted to provisions of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act and ought to have liberally interpreted the provisions of Sec.80P of the I.T.Act and ought to have considered the provisions of Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act judiciously and ought to have treated the impugned interest income of Rs.10,83,130/- as business income of the appellant society for the Asst.Year 2017-18 in the interests of justice. 6) The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated the fact that the initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act itself was ill founded, as the concerned assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... society for the A.Y.2017-18. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.PCIT and pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.PCIT in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO is not only erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, the Ld.PCIT is justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.PCIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on these grounds. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee society's case for ....