Prathamika Krishi Pattin Sahakara Sangh Niyamit Telagi, Bijapur V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

ITA 508/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5085 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 508/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Prathamika Krishi Pattin Sahakara Sangh Niyamit Telagi, Telagi Taluka Basavan Bagewadi, Dist. Bijapur – 586 216. PAN: AADAP3609C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3, Bijapur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha .R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of Hearing : 06-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 04.03.2024 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-12/NFAC, Mumbai for A.Y. 2017-18. Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 508/Bang/2024 2. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld.AR that in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, erroneous grounds were taken on an assessment order that did not pertain to the relevant assessment year under consideration. The observations of Ld.CIT(A) in paras 3.4-3.5 is quite clear on this aspect. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal since assessee could not remove the defects even after pointing out the anomaly. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The assessee has filed the correct assessment order before this Tribunal for the year under consideration, and is noted that, the disallowance made is due to the cash deposited during the demonetisation period and the disallowance of interest earned by the assessee on fixed deposits. 5. Considering the fact that assessee is a co-operative society and had filed a valid return within the period of limitation, the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d) deserves to be analysed in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in 431 ITR 1 and Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs. AO reported in (2023) 154 taxmann.com 305. Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 508/Bang/2024 6. It is noted that the authorities below has not considered the following CBDT Circulars. a) The 1 st instruction was issued on 21/02/2017 by instruction number 03/2017. b) The 2 nd instruction was issued on 03/03/2017 instruction number 4/2017. c) The 3 rd instruction was in the form of a circular dated 15/11/2017 in F.No. 225/363/2017-ITA.II and the last one dated 09/08/2019 in F.no.225/145/2019-ITA.II. 7. The assessing officer is also directed to verify the demonetised cash deposited during the year under consideration based on the circular applicable to the assessee to the present facts. The assessee is directed to furnish the PAN and KYC details of all the depositors in order to assist the Ld.AO to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 12 th August, 2024. /MS / Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 508/Bang/2024 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore