Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Lrde Employees Housing Co-Operative ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), ... on 28 March, 2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.P. Nos. 10 to 13/Bang/2025
(in ITA Nos. 1790 to
1793/Bang/2024)
Assessment Years : 2014-15,
2015-16, 2017-18 & 2020-21
M/s. LRDE Employees
Housing Co-operative
Society Ltd., The Income Tax Officer,
C/o LRDE, C.V. Raman Ward - 4(2)(2),
Nagar, Bangalore.
Bangalore - 560 093. Vs.
PAN: AAAAL8274E
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate
Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Date of Hearing : 21-03-2025
Date of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025
ORDER
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
All these miscellaneous petitions are filed against the order of 'B' Bench dated 28/11/2024 in ITA Nos. 1790 to 1793/Bang/2024.
2. The main grievance of the Counsel for the assessee is that the ITAT has only adjudicated additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee and has not adjudicated the other grounds raised in Form 36 and hence there is a mistake apparent from the record. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue, after referring to the grounds as raised in Form 36, contended that Page 2 of 3 M.P. Nos. 10 to 13/Bang/2025 in all these grounds, the solitary issue was whether the assessee is entitled for the deduction of 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from co- operative banks. The Ld. DR pointed out that the ITAT while passing the order in the appeals has already decided this issue after referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Totgars Society vs. PCIT reported in 395 ITR 611(Kar) and therefore there is no mistake in the impugned order.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Perusal of paragraph 7 of the order of ITAT would show that the ITAT has dealt with the issue of 80P(2)(d) as coming out from the grounds of appeal raised in Form No. 36. The other contention of the Ld.AR that ITAT has failed to consider certain evidences which were filed in paper book is also factually incorrect and hence there is no mistake apparent on record in this order.
4. Before parting, we would like to observe that Ld. Counsel for the assessee has tried to reargue the matter before us in miscellaneous proceedings. She has placed reliance upon some other Bench of ITAT orders, ignoring that sitting in Bangalore Bench of ITAT, we are bound to follow the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court verdict in the case of Totagar Society(Supra).
4. In the result, all these miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th March, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 28th March, 2025.
/MS /
Page 3 of 3
M.P. Nos. 10 to 13/Bang/2025
Copy to:
1. Appellant 2. Respondent
3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
5. Guard file 6. CIT(A)
By order
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Bangalore