Case Law Details
Laxmi Bachat Sharafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for not dealing with alternative claim and claiming the order of AO as prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not sustainable as anyhow deduction was available to the assessee.
Facts- On verification of records, the PCIT noted that the assessee had received substantial interest on Fixed deposits from various banks including ADC Bank and Mehsana Urban Bank which did not qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and he initiated revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.
The PCIT dismissed the contentions of the assessee and held that the assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the AO had allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest income u/s 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Act.
Conclusion- The assessee had demonstrated his claim being allowed alternatively under another clause of section 80P(2), the ld.Pr.CIT ought to have dealt with this claim of the assessee before arriving at a finding of error in the assessment order holding the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act as being incorrectly allowed by the AO. It is only after dealing with this alternative claim and finding it to be incorrect that it could be said that the allowance of deduction of interest income had resulted in prejudice to the Revenue, which condition also needs to be satisfied alongwith finding the assessment order erroneous for exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In the circumstance that the assesses claim is found allowable under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act, the allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by the AO cannot be said to be to the prejudice of the Revenue since in any case the assesses claim of deduction was allowable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
