TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short 'Act') dated 10.08.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, with the main objective of providing credit facilities to it's members. During the A.Y.2018-19, the assessee society had filed it's return of income declaring 'Nil' income after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. But, the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, disallowed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act and passed the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, by raising impugned demand of Rs.1,58,080/-. Subsequently, the assessee had filed rectification request....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity of being heard, which is against to the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld.First Appellate authority erred in making fresh addition of Rs. 3,27,037/- added as interest earned, assessed as income from other sources deserves to be deleted on the ground that, there is no interest income earned by the appellant during the A.Y. 2018-19. All the income is from business and eligible for deduciton under s.80P(2) of the Act, as per statutory provisions & legislative intentions. 4. The Appellant submits that, the impugned addition of Rs. 3,27,037/- added as interest earned wrongly assessed by Ld.First Appellate authority as tabulated below : S.No. Particulars Receipts Payments Difference/profit earned from ivnestment in S.BA/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as profit earned from investments in SB A/c as per audited Receipts & Payments A/c, made new disallowance of Rs. 3,27,037/- and confimred the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234F of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard to subtantiate it's claim, which is against to the principles of natural justice. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. I have heard both the part....