Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Ahmedabad
The Sabarkantha District Co.-Op. … vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income … on 12 January, 2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
(Virtual Court)
Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member
And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
ITA Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018
Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15
The ACIT, Sabarkanta Distt Co-op
Sabarkantha Circle, Milk Producers Union
Himatnagar-383001 Vs Ltd. Sabar Dairy,
(Appellant) At & PO Boriya,
Himatnagar,
Distt-Sabarkantha-
383001
PAN: AAAAS5265L
(Respondent)
C.O. No. 136/Ahd/2019
(in ITA No. 2402/Ahd/2018 )
Assessment Year 2014-15
Sabarkanta Distt Co-op The ACIT,
Milk Producers Union Ltd. Sabarkantha Circle,
Sabar Dairy, Vs Himatnagar-383001
At & PO Boriya, (Respondent)
Himatnagar,
Distt-Sabarkantha-383001
PAN: AAAAS5265L
(Appellant)
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 2
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R.
Assessee by: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.R.
Date of hearing : 11-12-2020
Date of pronouncement : 12-01-2021
आदे श/ORDER
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These two appeals filed by revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 and
cross objection filed by assessee A.Y. 2014-15 arise from order of the
CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 24-09-2018, in proceedings under section
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
ITA No. 2401/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14
2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowances u/s 80P(2)(d) of
Rs.2,32,84,772/- disregarding the provisions of section 80-AB of the IT Act.
2. The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowances of additional
depreciation of Rs.3,21,16,870/-claimed on account of Plant & Machinery.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowances of additional
depreciation on Milk CANs & Equipments of Rs.40,36,716/-.”
3. The assessee has filed return of income on 29th Sep, 2013 declaring
total income of Rs. 1,17,39,180/- for the year under consideration. The case
was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 2nd
Sep, 2014. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 4th March,
2016 and total income was assessed at Rs. 7,60,88,277/-. The Assessing
Officer has made disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and also disallowed
the additional claim of depreciation on account of plant and machinery.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 3
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance and addition made by
the Assessing Officer. The relevant facts pertaining to the issues are
discussed while adjudicating the grounds of appeal as follows.
Ground No. 1 (Deleting the disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs.
2,32,84,772/-)
4. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that
assessee has made investment in shares and securities to the amount of Rs.
7,91,89,690/- and also borrowed funds to the amount of Rs. 185.81 crores as
on 31st March, 2013 and claimed total interest expenses of Rs.
48,00,48,638/- in the Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer
further noticed that assessee has claimed exempted interest of Rs.
47,29,522/- and dividend income of Rs. 1,85,55,250/- totaling to Rs.
2,32,84,772/- u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the act. On query, the assessee explained
that it has received interest income from investment out of the amount
received on account of sale of milk and milk cans and the dividend income
has been earned from investment made out of own fund. The Assessing
Officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee stating that assessee
has not maintained separate account for each issue and also failed to prove
direct nexus of the sources of fund and its investment made during the year.
After referring various judgments at page no. 5 and 10 of the assessment
order, the Assessing Officer stated that assessee was not qualified for
exemption u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and the claim of exempted interest and
dividend income totaling of Rs. 2,32,84,772/- was disallowed and added to
the total income of the assessee.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 4
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
5. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before eth ld. CIT(A). The ld.
CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that similar issue for
assessment year 2009-10 has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by
the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High
Court. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as
under:-
“3.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submission of the
appellant. The AO has made the disallowance of claim of interest of Rs. 47,29,522/- and dividend
income of Rs.1,85,55,250/-totalling to Rs.2,32,84,772/- u/s. 8OP(2)(d) of the Act stating that the
above income is in the nature of income from other sources, and therefore, not allowable u/s.
80P(2)(d) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
3.4. The appellant on the other hand has stated that the issue has come up in the A. Y. 2009-10
and has been decided by the Honourable ITAT in appellant’s favour that interest and dividend
earned on investment is allowable u/s. 80P{2) (d) of the Act. The order of Honourable ITAT has
been affirmed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.473 of 2014. The CIT(A)
has deleted the similar disallowance in all preceding years. The Honourable ITAT in the
immediate preceding year in A. Y. 2012-13 has also upheld the decision made by CIT(A).
3.5. In view of the above and considering the decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad ‘A’ Bench
and Honourable Gujarat High Court, the disallowance u/s. 80P[2](d) made by the AC is deleted.
The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.”
6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel
has submitted that identical issue was contested in favour of the assessee by
the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of assessee itself for
assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 2613/Ahd/2012 and also in
assessment year 2012-13 vide ITA No. 1905/Ahd/2016. The ld. counsel has
also submitted that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also affirmed the
finding of the ITAT for assessment year 2009-10 vide Tax Appeal 473 of
2014 and for assessment year 2012-13 vide Tax Appeal No. 1312 of 2018.
The ld. Departmental Representative is fair enough not to contradict these
undisputed facts that the case of the assessee is covered by the judicial
pronouncement as referred by the ld. counsel.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 5
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the
assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through he decision of Co-
ordinate Bench of the ITAT in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.
2613/Ahd/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 as follows:-
“11. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that AO while disallowing the
50% of expenditure claimed by the assessee was of the view that interest expenses incurred by the
assessee on borrowed funds might have been used for the purpose of making investment, income
of which was claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee’s
submission was that they are having sufficient funds of Rs. 50.19 crore as on 31.03.2009 in the
form of capital of Rs. 10.19 crore and reserve and surplus of Rs. 40 crore against which the fixed
deposits with cooperative banks and societies were of Rs. 36.28 crore only. Since interest free
funds were more than the investment made in such deposits with cooperative banks and since the
funds were mixed funds the presumption was that the said deposits were made out of own non
interest bearing funds. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Mungal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 and decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of
Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340. Keeping these facts and the case laws in view, Ld.
CIT(A) held that it was not required to look into the source of the funds. The plain language of
section did not speak of any such adjustment. The only requirement was that income should be
received from investment in co-operative societies and co-operative banks. Since in the present
case, it was undisputed fact that income claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) was received from the investment
made in co-operative societies and co-operative banks, therefore assessee was eligible for
deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We further find that even otherwise since assessee was having
mixed funds and the interest free funds were more than investment in co-operative banks and co-
operative societies no disallowance was called for from eligible deduction u/s 80P(2(d) of the Act.
Therefore, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby
upheld.”
During the year as submitted by the assessee in its submission before the ld.
CIT(A) discussed at page no. 15 of the CIT(A)’s order that assessee was
having its own fund amounting to Rs. 77.52 crores as against the investment
of Rs. 42.54 crores, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench as elaborated above which was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat vide tax appeal no. 473 of 2014, we do
not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this
ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 6
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
Ground No. 2(Deleting the disallowance on additional deprecation of
Rs. 3,21,16,870/- claimed as plant and machinery other than milk can
equipments)
8. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that
assessee has claimed additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,21,16,870/-
equal to 10% of the cost of the machinery purchased and put to use for the
period less than 180 days in the F.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer stated
that as per provision of section 32 additional deprecation is allowable on the
plant and machinery only for the year in which the capacity expansion has
taken place and not in the subsequent year. The Assessing Officer was of
the view that additional deprecation is allowable only for the year in which
the capacity explanation have taken place and accordingly, disallowed the
balance 10% claim for the current year.
9. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.
CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee’s
case is covered by the decision given in assessee’s own case by the Co-
ordinate Bench of the ITAT Ahmedabad vide ITA no. 1905/Ahd/2016 dated
6th June, 2018. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced
as under:-
“4.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submission of the
appellant. The AO has made the disallowance of 10% of additional depreciation on plant and
machinery purchased and put to use for less than 180 days in the F. Y. 2011-12. The AO has held
that additional depreciation is allowable only for the year in which the capacity expenses have
taken place and accordingly disallowed the balance 10% claimed in the current year.
4.4. The appellant on the other hand has stated that the appellant’s case is covered by the decision
given in appellant’s own case for A. Y. by CIT(A) – 4, Ahmedabad and the same has been upheld
by Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad vide order in ITA No.l905/Ahd/2016 dated 06/06/2018. The
relevant findings of the Honourable ITAT is as under:-
“14. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee has made addition to its plant &
machinery which is eligible for grant of additional depreciation under section 32(l)(ii) of
the Act. This plant & machinery was used for less than 180 days in the preceding year.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 7
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
The assessee claimed that the additional depreciation for remaining period of 180 days
ought to be allowed in subsequent year i.e. in the present assessment year. The Id.AO
was of the view that such additional depreciation is admissible one time, and therefore,
the assessee should have installed the plant & machinery at the beginning of the year so
that it could claim additional depreciation in the year of installation itself. Accordingly,
50% unclaimed depreciation has been disallowed to the assessee. On appeal, the
ld.CIT(A) after putting reliance on the order of the ITAT allowed the claim of the
assessee.
15. With the assistance of the Id. representatives, we have gone through the record
carefully. We find that this issue has been examined by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case
of DCIT Vs. Cosmos Films Ltd., 24 taxmatm.com 189 wherein one of us (Judicial
Member) is party to the order. ITAT has examined this aspect in detail and held that any
claim of additional depreciation on account of non-user of the machinery over a period
of 180 days or more should be claimed in the next assessment years.
The discussion made by the ITAT has been reproduced by the ld.CIT(A), and it is worth
to take note as under:
“17. We have heard both the sides on this issue. Section 32(1) (iia) inserted by Finance
(No. 2) with effect from 1.4.2003. In speech of Finance Minister this clause was inserted
to provide incentive for fresh investment in industrial sector. This clause was intended to
give impetus to new investment in setting up a new industrial unit or for expanding the
installed capacity of existing units by at least 25 % thereafter these provisions were
amended by the Finance (No.2) Act of 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and provided that in the case
of any machinery or plant which has been acquired after the 31 st day of march, 2005 by
an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture of production of any article or thing
a further sum equal 15 % of actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as
deduction under clause (ii) of section 33(1). This additional allowance u/s 32(1) (iia) is
made available as certain percentage of actual cost of new machinery and plant acquired
and installed. This provision has been directed to the setting up new industrial
undertaking making or for expansion of the industrial undertaking by way of making
more investment in capital goods. Thus, these are incentives aimed to boost new
investments in setting up and expanding the units. The proviso to section 32(1) (iia)
restricts the benefits in respect of following- ‘Provided that no deduction shall be allowed
in respect of_ (A) Any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assesses
was used either within or outside India by any other person; or (B) Any machinery or
plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including
accommodation in the nature of a guest-house or (C) Any office appliances or road
transport vehicle, or (D) Any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is
allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the
income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession of any
previous year.” Thus, this incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation is not
available to any plant or machinery which been used either within India or outside India
by any other person or such machinery and plant are installed in any office premises or
any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest house
or any office /appliances or road transport vehicles, or any machinery or plant the whole
of actual cost of which is allowable as deduction (where by wau of depreciation or
otherwise) in computing under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession” of
any one prevision year. Thus, the intension was not to deny the benefit to the assets, who
have acquired or instated new machinery or plant. The second proviso to section 32(1)
(ii) restricts the allowances only to 50% where the assets have been acquired and part to
use for a period less than 160 days in the year of acquisition. This restriction is only on
the basis of period of use. There is no restriction, that balance of one time incentive in the
form of additional sum of depreciation shall not be available in the subsequent year.
Section 32(2) provides for a carry forward set up of unabsorbed depreciation. This
additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(l)(iia) is one time benefit to
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 8
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bajaj Tempo vs. CIT, cited supra, the provisions related to it have to be
constructed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while
granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to
industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be
reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to get the benefit in full when
there is no restriction in the statute lo deny the benefit of balance of 50% when the new
plant and machinery were acquired and use for less than 180 days. One time benefit
extended to assesses has been earned in the year of acquisition of new plant and
machinery. It has been calculated @ 15% but restricted to 50% only on account of usage
of these plant & machinery in the year of acquisition. In section 32(1 (iia) the expression
used is “shall be allowed”. Thus the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had
purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that
particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the
statutory right, Law docs not prohibit that balance 50% will not be allowed in succeeding
year. The extra depreciation allowable u/s 32{1) (iia) in an extra incentive which has
been earned and calculated in the year of acquisition but restricted for that year to 50%
on account of usage. The so earned incentive must be made available in the subsequent
year. The overall deduction of depreciation u/s 32 shall definitely not exceed the total
cost of plant machinery. In view of this matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities
below and direct to extend the benefit,”
16. Respectfully following the order of the 1TAT, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A)
has rightly deleted the disallowance and has rightly directed the AO for grant of
remaining additional depreciation in this assessment year. We do not find any error in
finding of ld.CIT( A) on this ground of appeal. Accordingly, it is rejected.”
4.5. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of Honourable ITAT, the
disallowance of additional depreciation made by the AO is deleted. The ground of appeal is
accordingly allowed.”
10. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel
has contended that the issue in appeal is covered by the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself for assessment
year 2012-13 vide ITA No. 1905/Ahd/2016. The ld. Departmental
Representative is fair enough not to controvert these undisputed facts that
the issue is covered in favour of the assessee.
11. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the
assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone though the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself for
assessment year 2011-12 as elaborated above in the finding of the ld. CIT(A)
and considered that the issue in the instant appeal is covered by the aforesaid
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 9
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
decision of the ITAT. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT, we do
not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of
appeal of the revue is also dismissed.
Ground No. 3(Deleting disallowance of additional depreciation on milk
equipment of Rs. 40,36,716/-)
12. During the course of assessment the Assessing Officer noticed that
assessee has claimed additional depreciation on milk cans of Rs. 37,28,661/-
, on equipment of Rs. 2,45,597/- and on equipment (cattle feed plant) of Rs.
62,548/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that aforesaid equipments
were not of the category of plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer
stated that mil cans were used for collecting and storage facilities and
similarly the equipment were part of laboratory testing, containers were for
artificial insemination by which no production capacity was enhanced
cannot be categorized as plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming
additional depreciation. Therefore, additional deprecation claimed on milk
cans and equipments of Rs. 40,36,716/- (37,28,661+2,45,597+62,458) was
disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.
13. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.
CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that similar issue was
contested in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT
vide ITA No. 1905/Ahd/2016 dated 9th June, 2018. The relevant part of the
decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
“5.3. 1 have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submission of the
appellant. The AO has made the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.40,36,716/- on milk
cans, Rs,2,45,597/-claimed on equipments and Rs.62,458/- claimed on equipments (Cattle Feed
Plant) stating that the equipments which are part of laboratory testing, containers for Artificial
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 10
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
Insemination by which no production capacity is enhanced cannot be categorized as plant S.
machinery for the purpose of claiming additional depreciation.
5.4. The appellant on the other hand has stated that the appellant’s case is covered by the decision
given in appellant’s own case for A. Y. 2012-13 by CIT(A) – 4, Ahmedabad and the same has been
upheld by Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad vide order in ITA No.l905/Ahd/2016 dated 06/06/2018.
The relevant findings of the Honourable ITAT is as under:-
“9. Ground No.2; In this ground, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A)) has
erred in deleting disallowance of additional depreciation of Ks.33,80,446/-. It is pertinent
to mention that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation on milk canes. The
Id.AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that such canes were used
for transporting the milk from village to plant, and therefore, does not form part of plant
& machinery. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing that the AO himself
treated milk cans as plant and allowed depreciation at the rate of 15%, In other words,
he has allowed the depreciation at normal rates and refused to allow additional
depreciation. According to the Id.CIT(A) expression “plant” has been defined in section
43(3) which reads asunder: Section 43(3) : “Plant” includes ships, vehicles, books,
scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purposes of the business or
profession (but does not include tea bushes or livestock or buildings or furniture and
fittings)
10. After considering the above definition, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance.
11. With the assistance of the ld. representatives, we have gone through the record
carefully. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) would indicate that there is no
distinction between the expression “plant” for allowing normal depreciation vis-a-vis
additional depreciation on that item. The ld AO has created an artificial distinction on
that ground. After going through the order of the ld.CIT(A) we are satisfied that the
ld.CIT(A) has examined the issue with all possible angle, and thereafter held that
depreciation is admissible to the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this
ground of appeal. It is rejected,”
5.5. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of Honourable 1TAT, the
disallowance of additional depreciation made by the AO is deleted. The ground of appeal is
accordingly allowed.”
14. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, ld. counsel has
contended that identical issue on similar facts was adjudicated in favour of
the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT for assessment year
2012-13 vide ITA No. 1905/Ahd/2016 dated 6th June, 2018. On the other
hand, ld. counsel is fair enough not to controvert these undisputed facts that
the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate
Bench of the ITAT as mentioned above. Respectfully following the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as elaborated in the finding of ld. CIT(A),
we do not find any infirmity and the same is dismissed.
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 11
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
ITA No. 2402/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15
16. As the facts and issue involved in grounds of appeal vide ITA No.
2401/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 are similar as in ITA
No. 2402/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14 therefore after
applying the decision adjudicated vide ITA No. 2401/Ahd/2015
as supra in this order, this appeal of the revenue stands
dismissed.
Cross Objection No. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14
17. The assesse has filed cross objection against the decision of ld. CIT(A)
in confirming the interest charged u/s. 234A of the Act of Rs. 4,71,300/-.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has
brought to our notice that return was filed within due date, therefore, no
interest is required to be charged. The ld. counsel has referred pager no. 26
to 28 of the paper pertaining to copy of acknowledgement of original return
of income and original statement of total income for assessment year 2014-
15 placed in the paper book. The ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee
was required to furnish form no. 3CEB, therefore, due date of filing of return
of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act was 30th Nov, 2014.
18. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We consider
that this issue is required to be verified by the Assessing Officer after
examination of the material placed in the paper book. Therefore, we restore
this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh as directed
I.T.A Nos. 2401 & 2402/Ahd/2018 & C.O. 136/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 12
ACIT vs. The Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.
above. Accordingly, this cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes
19. In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are
dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 -01-2021
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 12/01/2021
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
अहमदाबाद
Comments