Section 80P(2)(d) deduction eligible to co-op society on interest from investments with co-op banks

Mullanpur Garibdas Co-operative Multipurpose Society Vs PCIT-II (ITAT Chandigarh)

ITAT held that assessee society, being a cooperative society, is entitled to the exemption claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of income by way of interest derived by it from its investments with the cooperative banks.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH

This is assessee⁴s appeal for the assessment year 20 12-13 against the order dated 28.2.20 17, passed by the learned PCIT-2, Chandigarh, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The following Grounds have been raised:

“1. That the learned Principle Commissioner of Income Tax has heard in law in issuing notice and thereafter passing the order under section 263 only on the basis of an audit objection which is not permissible and as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, which merits annulment.

2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Principle Commissioner of Income Tax has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to set aside the assessment order dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer in as much as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and as such, the assumption ofjurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. That the order of revision has been passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax ignoring the settled law on the deductions under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

3. That the assessment order having been passed by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind and taking into consideration the various replies and material on record, the action resorted to by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax is unwarranted and uncalled for.

4. That the reasons mentioned in the notice issued by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax for initiation of proceedings under section 263 are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises with no material whatsoever on record to substantiate the action so initiated which, in any case, has been duly countered during the course of proceedings before him, clearly establishing that the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.”

2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee has stated at the bar that he does not wish to press Ground Number 1. Rejected as not pressed.