MESERS THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP.THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HOSHIARPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ,CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 385/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7677 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN JINDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Bonafide belief; Set aside
• Section: 56; 143(3); 80P; 113

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EXMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., TELECOM EXCHANGE BUILDING, HOSHIARPUR. VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR. PAN AACAT1752D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI J.S. BHASIN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI LALIT MOHAN JINDAL, D.R DATE OF HEARING: 16.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2 015-16 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR, DATED 30.03.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT IT ACT), DATED 31.10.2017. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY MISDIRECTED HERSELF IN ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,60,312/- AS HAD BEEN WRONGLY MADE BY THE LD. AO IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE BEING IN VIOLAT ION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, INASMUCH AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED NOT ONLY BY TAK ING A VIEW CONTRARY THE ONE ALREADY TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING TWO YEAR S, BUT ALSO WITHOUT CONFIRMING THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EARLIER VIEW WAS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT 3. THAT WHILE PASSING THE ABOVE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOP. SOCIETY VS ITO IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1622/2010, WHEN THE SAID DECISION HAD ALREADY BEEN DIS TINGUISHED BY THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH AMRITSAR, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A) IN EARLIER TWO YEARS. 4. THAT BY AN RECKONING, THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BRING ARBI TRARY, UNLAWFUL AND CONTRARY TO JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE SUSTAINED AT ALL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETIES, HOSHIARPUR HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2015-16 ON 26.09.2015, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,15,990/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 86,24,254/- UNDER SEC. 80P(2) OF T HE IT ACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSE D AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,43,50,900/- WERE ADVANCED AS LOANS TO ITS MEMBERS, WHILE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,54,343/- WAS LYING DEPOSITE D IN THE BANKS. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY HAD EARNED INTEREST OF RS. 2,36,45,452/- ON LOANS ADVAN CED TO THE MEMBERS AND INTEREST OF RS. 2,66,630/- ON THE FUNDS LYING DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AFTER INTER ALIA CLAIMING THE INTEREST OF RS. 1,26,83,982/- PAID ON DEPOSITS WHICH WAS A M AJOR EXPENDITURE, HAD SHOWN THE NET PROFIT AT RS. 88,19,885/- WHICH W AS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE IT ACT. IN SOFAR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNTS LYING WITH THE BANKS VIZ. ( I) INTEREST ON BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK : RS. 1,29,501/-; (II) INTEREST ON BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK : RS. 1,12,706/-; AND (III) INTEREST ON BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA : RS. 18,105/ - WAS CONCERNED, THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME WERE NOT ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE IT ACT. IN THE BACKDROP OF HI S AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE A.O DECLINED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SEC. 80P RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE INTEREST FROM BANKS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,60,312/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER NECESSARY DELIB ERATIONS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS A CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT S OCIETY HAD INVESTED ITS SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS AND HAD EARNED INTEREST ON THE SAME. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE JUD GMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S THE TOTGAR S CO-OP. SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO, KARNATAKA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 622 OF 2010, DATED 08.02.2010), OBSERVED THAT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE A PEX COURT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SEC. 80P ON THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY IT ON THE FUNDS LY ING WITH THE BANKS. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT( A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR DISALLOW ANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A) RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE SOCIETY IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS VIZ. A.Y. 2013-14 A ND A.Y. 2014-15 WAS DELETED BY THE THEN CIT(A), VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 24.01.2017 AND 15.06.2017, FOR THE SAID RESPECTIVE YEARS. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE SAID APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HAD THUS MERELY RELIED ON THE SAME AND DID NOT ADVANCE ANY CONTENTIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL FOR THE P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FAILED TO MAKE ANY REF ERENCE TO THE EARLIER TWO ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE AND HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S THE TOTGARS CO-OP. SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO, KARNATAKA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2010, DATED 08.02.2010). IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS IN ERROR IN NOT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH HER INTENTION OF NOT ACCEPTING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HE R PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS AND HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY RELYING ON THE AFORESAID JU DGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R T HAT NOT ONLY THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT AFFOR DING A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO DISTINGUISH THE FACT S OF ITS CASE AS AGAINST THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONB LE APEX COURT, BUT EVEN OTHERWISE BY TAKING RECOURSE TO AN INCONSISTEN T APPROACH HAD CLEARLY VIOLATED THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY . IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG VS. C IT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD . A.R THAT THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF HONNALI CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2018) TAXPUB (DT) 1052 (BANG) HAD DIS TINGUISHED THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE THEM AS AGAINST T HOSE WHICH WERE THERE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S THE TOTGARS CO-OP. SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO, KARNATAKA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2010, DATED 08.02.2010). IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. A.R THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE HAD OBSERVE D THAT AS IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OP SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) THE SOCIETY BESIDES PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WAS ALSO PURCHASING AGRICULTURE PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, THEREFORE, IN T HE BACKDROP OF THE SAID FACTS IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COU RT THAT THE INTEREST P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT EARNED ON THE SURPLUS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY L YING BY WAY OF DEPOSITS WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING BANKS C OULD NOT BE HELD AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN SE C. 80P(2)(A)(I) OR 80P(2)(A)(III). IT WAS THUS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A. R THAT AS THE CORE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WAS TO PROVIDE CRE DIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS FROM THEM, THUS IT W AS DULY ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) R.W. S. 80P(2)(D). APART THERE FROM, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R TH AT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS NOT PARKING ITS SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE BANKS, BUT THE SAME WERE BEING DEPOSITED BY VIRTUE OF ITS BUSINESS EXIGENCY. THE LD. A.R HAD ALSO RELIED ON A RECENT ORDER OF A COORDINA TE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH I.E. THE TIARA CO-OP. AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD., KANGRA VS. ITO, DHARAMSHALA ( ITA NO. 905/CHANDI/2017; DATED 01.05.2018), WHEREIN A SIMIL AR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DISTINGUISHING THE AF ORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OP SAL E SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA). 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR, WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2013-14 AND A .Y. 2014-15, HAD VIDE HIS RESPECTIVE ORDERS DATED 24.01.2017 AND 15. 06.2017 VACATED THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE A.O OF THE ASSESSES CLAIM O F DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON T HE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE LYING WITH THE SAME BANKS I.E. PUNJAB NATI ONAL BANK, INDIAN BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FRO M THE ORDER OF THE P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT CIT(A) IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO REFERENCE BY HER TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY HER PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE O N THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PRECEDING YEARS. WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. A. R THAT IN CASE THE CIT(A) INTENDED NOT TO RELY ON THE VIEW TAKEN BY HE R PREDECESSOR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FA CTS DURING THE YEAR AS IN COMPARISON TO THE SAID PRECEDING YEARS, SHE W AS OBLIGATED TO HAVE AT LEAST CONVEYED HER SAID INTENTION SO THAT T HE ASSESSEE WHO REMAINED UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER PASSED IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDI NG TWO YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADVANCE ITS CONTENTIONS ON THE ME RITS OF THE CASE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE FIND THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS , THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSI NESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH ACTIVITY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. INSOFAR THE TERM ATTRIBUTABLE TO IS CO NCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE SAME AS DEFINED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) IS A TERM WHICH IS MUCH WIDER IN IMPACT THAN T HE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THE TERM ATTRIBUTABLE TO COVERED RECEIP TS FROM ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILIT IES OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IN FACT, THE CONSCIOUS, INTENTIONAL AND PU RPOSIVE USAGE OF THE WORD ATTRIBUTABLE TO BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SEC. 8 0P(2)(A)(I) WOULD MEAN THAT IF IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS THE SOCIETY RECEIVED ANY INCOME WHICH WAS T HE OUTCOME OF SUCH BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE M, THE SAID INCOME WAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS WHICH WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A )(I) OF THE IT ACT. IT P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. ITO ( 2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) WAS DEALING WITH A PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE INTEREST INCOME HAD ACCRUED ON FUNDS INVESTED IN THE BANKS WHICH WERE N OT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS AND WERE INVESTED IN SECURITIES AND SHORT TERM DEPOSITS WITH OTHER BANKS , THEN SUCH INTEREST EARNED ON THE DEPOSITS WOULD FALL WITHIN T HE CATEGORY OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 56 A ND WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I). APA RT THERE FROM, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY VIZ. TOTGARS CO-OP SALE SOCIETY LTD. WAS NO T SOLELY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, BUT WAS ALSO HELP ING THEM IN MARKETING THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WHIL E DISPOSING OFF THE PRESENT APPEAL HAD ERRED IN NOT DISTINGUISHING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HER PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDI ATELY TWO PRECEDING YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2013-14 AND A.Y. 2014-15, WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS HER PREDECESSOR HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD W ITH THE NATIONALIZED BANKS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I). APART THERE FROM, WE FIND THAT THOUGH IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT WERE BY VIRTUE OF ITS BUSINESS EXIGENCY, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A ) OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED ITS SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE P UBLIC SECTOR BANKS, HAD THUS ON THE SAID COUNT CONCLUDED THAT THE INTER EST ON SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) OR SEC. 80P(2)(A)(III) BY RELYING ON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT VS. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE AFORESAID ASSUMPTION BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPO SITED ITS SURPLUS/IDLE FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS CLEARLY MIL ITATES AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE BEING D EPOSITED IN THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF A BUSINESS EXIGENCY. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) WH ILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY TWO PRECEDING YEARS I.E. AY. 2013-14 AND A.Y. 2014-15. ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TH E MATTER IN ALL FAIRNESS REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), WHO SHALL AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO WARDS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2) I.E AFTER CONSIDERING T HE VIEW TAKEN BY HER PREDECESSOR IN THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2013-1 4 AND A.Y. 2014-15 AND OUR OBSERVATIONS RECORDED HEREINABOVE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE CIT(A) SHALL IN THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEED INGS AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE WHO SHALL REMAIN AT A LIBERTY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS AFORESAID C LAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. 9. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/04/2019 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL ME MBER PLACE : CHANDIGARH; DATED 05.04.2019 PS. ROHIT P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 385/ASR./2018 A.Y. 2015-16 THE HOSHIARPUR TELECOM EMPLOYEES COOP. THRIFT & CRED IT SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. DR, ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) & ' /ITAT, CAMP. BENCH, JALANDHAR