SAMATA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSHTA MARYADIT, PUNE V. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 763/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6065 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUND BHAGWAT
• Keywords: Revision of order; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 263; 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.763/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samata Nagari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Prasanna Residency, At & Post NIRA, Tal- Purandar, Dist. Pune- 412102. PAN : AABAS5442E Vs. ITO, Ward- 14(5), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by LD PCIT, Pune-4 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The learned PCIT erred in initiating action u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act even though the assessing officer's assessment order under sec 143 (3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2) The learned PCIT erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the order of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Pune Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bhagwat Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2024 ITA No.763/PUN/2024 2 Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2017-2018 in reaching the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's allowance of deduction u/s 80P was incorrect. 3) The learned PCIT's order under section 263 be set aside and cancelled. 4) Such other orders be passed as deemed fit and proper. 5) The appellant prays for leave to add to, alter or modify its grounds of appeal and lead evidence.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society, formed under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, engaged in the business of providing credit facility to its members by accepting deposits & advances from its members and advancing loans to its members. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed on 31/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,37,380/- after claiming deduction under u/s 80P of the IT Act for Rs.2,00,03,800/-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 22/08/2019 by CPC, Bengaluru at a total income of Rs.3,09,220/- after making some prima-facie adjustment / disallowances u/s 36 of the IT Act as there was difference in Schedule Part A-OI, Sl. No.6. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Investments/Advances/Loans, and Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VIA”. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) ITA No.763/PUN/2024 3 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the IT Act on 05.04.2021 by National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,09,220/-. 3.1 Subsequently, on review of the assessment records, the ld. PCIT Pune (4) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not even commented upon the fact as to whether assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) or any other specific sub-section. He has simply held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P. Failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in examining the above issue has rendered the assessment order dated 05.04.2021 erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This has resulted in under assessment of income to the tune of Rs.4,74,23,863/- and consequent short levy of tax. In view of the above, a show case notice was issued to the assessee on 21.01.2023 u/s 263 of the IT Act calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order dated 05.04.2021 should not be set aside u/s 263 of the IT Act. In response to above show-cause notice, the assessee filed a detailed submission. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, LD PCIT Pune (4), formed an opinion that the assessment order dated ITA No.763/PUN/2024 4 05-04-2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the Act & therefore vide order dated 11.03.2024 be set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act & pass fresh assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above decision of Ld. PCIT, Pune (4) the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. LD AR submitted before us that the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the case of assessee himself is no more res integra because in the case of assessee himself for assessment year 2017-18 a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.380/PUN/2022 order dated 21-12-2022 has already cancelled the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act, through which the assessment order was set-aside for re-examination of the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P2(a)(i) & u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. In the light of above decision in the case of assessee himself Ld counsel of the assessee requested before the bench to set-aside / cancel the order dated 11-03-2024 passed u/s 263 of the IT Act by LD CIT Pune (4). ITA No.763/PUN/2024 5 6. LD DR Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari appearing for the revenue vehemently supported the order passed by LD PCIT Pune- 4. LD DR also furnished a paperbook containing 169 pages, wherein various case laws relied on by him were attached. A separate write up was also furnished by him in support of the order passed by LD PCIT Pune (4). In the light of above and various case laws, LD DR requested to confirm the order passed by LD PCIT Pune (4). 7. We have heard LD counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record and case laws relied on by the ld. DR. We find that similar proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act were initiated in the case of present assessee for assessment year 2017- 18 for re-examining the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act & a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.380/PUN/2022 vide order dated 21-12- 2022 was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee which was filed against the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act. In the instant case in hand similar proceedings was also initiated u/s 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2018-19 & therefore respectfully following the above decision passed in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2017-18, we allow the appeal of the ITA No.763/PUN/2024 6 assessee & set-aside the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act passed by LD PCIT Pune (4). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03 rd July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 03 rd July, 2024. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.