Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7033 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-05-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
12-02-2024
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.268/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2020-2021 Dhanashri Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Damaji Road, Mangalvedhe PIN - 413 305. Dist. Solapur Maharashtra. PAN AABAD1879N vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Indraprastha Bhavan, Near St Stand, Pandharpur. PIN - 413 305. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2020- 2021, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1058771898(1), dated 14.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.268/PUN./2024 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a sum of Rs.33,41,019/- for entire book profit of appellant society without appreciating the fact that earning of interest is an integral part of society’s business and appellant prays for allowing such deduction. 2. Without prejudice to above ground, learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing consequential deduction of current year loss, which would have arisen after taking out the interest figure of Rs.4,35,07,808 from the Profit and loss A c which has resulted into excess tax liability. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment as income from other sources by rejecting appellant’s contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer’s action. 4. Without prejudice to above ground on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law Learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest income of Rs.4,35,07,808/-, received from other co-operative society. Your appellants pray for allowing of the same. 3 ITA.No.268/PUN./2024 5. Without prejudice to above ground, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating entire interest income as interest income received from other co-operative society or bank without allowing deduction on account of interest/administrative expenses. Your appellant prays for such deduction. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s above extracted pleadings seeking to revive Assessing Officer’s action disallowing assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim(s) of Rs.4,35,10,380/- as deleted in the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives vehemently reiterated their respective stands in favour and against the impugned disallowance representing interest income derived from various cooperative societies/banks and similar other institutions. Learned counsel at this stage referred to the tribunal’s order in assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.266 & 267/PUN./2024 dated 21.03.2024 in preceding assessment years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019; respectively, rejecting the Revenue’s very stand 4 ITA.No.268/PUN./2024 regarding sec.80P deduction claim(s). The Revenue is fair enough in not pinpointing any specific distinction during the course of hearing in all these assessment years so far as the relevant facts are concerned. That being the case, we adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned NFAC’s action deleting the impugned disallowance(s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28 th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
Mehul