Sharad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit v. ITO

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0787 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Solitaire CHS Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8002 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Majalgaon Sahakari, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2137 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3128 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1748 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. & Buchireddy Palem Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v. Chief CIT & ITO 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1639 (Hyd-HC)
REFERRED Principal CIT & Anr. v. Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0677 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED State Bank of India (SBI) v. Commissioner of Income-tax 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3564 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED K. Subramanian & Anr. v. Siemen’S India Ltd. & Anr. 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0158 (Bom-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1993 (Pune-Trib) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. Sharad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit v. ITO I.T.A. No. 335/PUN./2024 16 April, 2024 Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Manish Mehta ORDER *Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M.* This assessees appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC) Delhis Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1059217305(1), dated 29-12-2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Case called twice. None appears at assessees behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Coming to the assessees sole substantive grievance claiming Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction of Rs. 21,42,515 representing interest from cooperative institution(s) and other bank(s) involving Rs. 20,46,515 and Rs. 96,000 respectively; it is noticed that the same is no more res integra in light of this tribunals recent coordinate benchs order ITA No. 1249//PUN/2018, dt. 7-1-2022 : 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0787 (Pune-Trib) in The Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. PCITs case has rejected the Revenues identical arguments as follows : 3. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Principal Commissioner called for the assessment records of the assessee. It was observed by the Principal Commissioner that the assessee had during the year shown interest income from FDs with Co-operative Banks amounting to Rs. 75,38,534, against which it had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was observed by the Principal Commissioner, that the assessing officer while framing the assessment had allowed the aforesaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee. Observing, that as co-operative banks were commercial banks and not a co-operative society, therefore, the Principal Commissioner was of the view that the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d). In the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction, the Principal Commissioner was of the view that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3), dated 07-3-2016, therein allowing the assesses claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein set aside the order of the assessing officer with a direction to redecide the issue afresh and reframe the assessment. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1993 (Pune-Trib)

IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

Sharad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit v. ITO

I.T.A. No. 335/PUN./2024

16 April, 2024

Assessee by: None

Revenue by: Shri Manish Mehta

ORDER

Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M.

This assessees appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC) Delhis Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1059217305(1), dated 29-12-2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessees behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2. Coming to the assessees sole substantive grievance claiming Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction of Rs. 21,42,515 representing interest from cooperative institution(s) and other bank(s) involving Rs. 20,46,515 and Rs. 96,000 respectively; it is noticed that the same is no more res integra in light of this tribunals recent coordinate benchs order ITA No. 1249//PUN/2018, dt. 7-1-2022 : 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0787 (Pune-Trib) in The Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. PCITs case has rejected the Revenues identical arguments as follows :

3. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Principal Commissioner called for the assessment records of the assessee. It was observed by the Principal Commissioner that the assessee had during the year shown interest income from FDs with Co-operative Banks amounting to Rs. 75,38,534, against which it had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was observed by the Principal Commissioner, that the assessing officer while framing the assessment had allowed the aforesaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee. Observing, that as co-operative banks were commercial banks and not a co-operative society, therefore, the Principal Commissioner was of the view that the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d). In the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction, the Principal Commissioner was of the view that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3), dated 07-3-2016, therein allowing the assesses claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein set aside the order of the assessing officer with a direction to redecide the issue afresh and reframe the assessment.