TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17.03.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2) The Learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal of assessee considering the submission reproduced in the appellate order. 3) The Learned CIT(A) erred in recording findings at para 5 which are not related to grounds of appeal as raised in the memo of appeal. 4) The income declared at Rs. NIL after claim of deduction u/s 80P ought to have been accepted in the assessment framed. 5) The income determined by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted by the assessee is nothing but just an afterthought. With these observations, Ld. AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal filed by assessee. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for assessee furnished gist of submission which is as under: A) Assessee is credit co-operative society engaged providing credit facilities to its members and income of assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961. The aforesaid facts are evident from the audited financial statements submitted along with return of income. B) Audited Prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). G) Before CIT(A) entire case of assessee was explained and reliance has been made on the circular of Board dated 11/04/1955 apart from reliance on the decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of M/s Infospectirum India Pvt. Ltd. and judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case. Written submission and documentary evidence has been reproduced and discussed in the appellate order from pages 4 to 17 of appellate order. The aforesaid submission as made has not been found faulted by CIT(A), Faceless Appeal Centre. In the appellate order at para 5 at pages 17 to 19 it has noted details with provisions of section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act 1961. It appears to be of some other assessee and not that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been denied by the Ld. AO for incorrect column filled in the return of income. It is noted from the record that deduction at Rs. 76,75,476/- u/s 80P was claimed in return of income which is verifiable at page 78 of paper book. The Tax Audit Report indicates that auditors have certified the admissibility of deduction u/s 80P at Rs. 76,75,476/-. It is matter of record that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) has been allowed in past as well as subsequent assessment years in the orders passed u/s 143(3)/143(1) of the Act. The details of orders wherein claim of deduction u/s 80P has been accepted are as under: Asstt. Year Order u/s Order date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee in the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) has neither pointed out any defect in the submissions nor recorded any finding rejecting the factual contentions advanced by the assessee. It is further observed that in para 5 of appellate order (Pages 17 to 19) the discussion pertains to the provisions of section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The said discussion has no relevance whatsoever to the issue involved in the present case. 10. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of case and material available on record, we find that assessee had duly claimed deduction u/s 80P in return of income and same was also certified in the Tax Audit Report. The deduction has been denied merely on account of wrong mention of the relev....