TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the controversy involved in both the appeals is identical, arising from similar facts, common grounds and involving the same issue of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts. 2. The solitary issue arising in both the appeals relates to the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from deposits maintained with co-operative banks. The deduction so claimed amounts to Rs.1,96,592 for Assessment Year 2020-21 and Rs.2,10,560 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The CPC, while processing the returns under section 143(1), disallowed the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the ambit of deduction available under section 80P and, therefore, interest earned from investments made with co-operative banks would not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The learned CIT(A) further observed that the character of such income remained "Income from Other Sources" and merely because the payer happened to be a co-operative bank, the deduction contemplated under section 80P(2)(d) could not be extended. 5. While affirming the disallowance, the learned CIT(A) extensively relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (395 ITR 611) and observed that the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the highest, the issue is admittedly debatable and, therefore, no adjustment could have been made while processing the return under section 143(1), much less could such a debatable issue be brought within the limited jurisdiction of section 154. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the statutory provisions as well as the judicial precedents and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and the entire material placed before us. Upon a thoughtful consideration of the controversy involved, we find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interpretation of statutory provisions or examination of competing judicial precedents. Equally, the jurisdiction under section 154 is circumscribed by the well settled principle that only an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record can be rectified. A question on which two reasonable views are possible can never constitute a mistake apparent from the record. This principle has been consistently recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and has now become an integral part of the jurisprudence governing sections 143(1) and 154. 10. In the present case, the very fact that different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have examined the interplay between section 80P(2)(d) and section 80P(4), and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able proposition of law which could justify an adjustment under section 143(1). 12. In Ekta Bhoomi Garden III (supra), after analysing the entire legal position, this Tribunal had categorically held that denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) by way of adjustment under section 143(1) is unsustainable in law and that the consequential rectification proceedings under section 154 are equally without jurisdiction. Since the facts before us are admittedly identical and no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the Revenue, judicial discipline demands that we follow the view already taken by the Co-ordinate Bench. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the adjustment made while processing the return under section 1....