Shriram Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit v. Income Tax Officer -20(3)(3), Mumbai
[Citation -2016-LL-1007-64]
| Citation | 2016-LL-1007-64 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Shriram Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit |
| Respondent Name | Income Tax Officer -20(3)(3), Mumbai |
| Court | ITAT-Mumbai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 07/10/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2009-10 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | co-operative society • granting of stay • returned income • credit society • nil income • stay of demand of tax |
| Bot Summary: | Ld. Counsel submitted that, applicant-assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Society s Act, 1960 and is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities only to its members and accepting the deposit only from its members. The assessee for the assessment years under appeal had filed return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under section 80P. He further submitted that, in the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, assessment were completed after scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) accepting the returned income as well as the claim of deduction under section 80P. Later on, the assessee s case was reopened under section 147 mainly on the ground that conditions of sub-section(4) of section 80P are not fulfilled and the said claim has been denied which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). In the AY 2012-13, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) itself has denied the claim for deduction on same ground by invoking the sub-section of section 80P. He submitted that this issue now stands covered by various decisions and has referred to some in the impugned stay application. After considering the aforesaid submissions and the facts qua the purpose of Stay, we find that though the impugned assessments has been made denying the claim of deduction under section 80P by invoking the provisions of sub-section of section 80P the applicability of the conditions mentioned in sub- section needs to be examined on facts for which proper deliberation from both the sides are required. Counsel has not pointed out for any financial hardships overall balance of convenience for granting stay cannot be said to be in favour of the assessee. We accept the alternative and second prayer of the Ld. Counsel for granting early hearing, that is, the impugned appeals should be heard on priority basis. Accordingly, the aforesaid stay applications stands partly allowed as indicated above. |