Jhunjhunu Sahakari Samiti v. PCIT: ITAT Jaipur Section 263 & 80P(2)(d) Relief

This case study examines an ITAT Jaipur ruling on a Section 263 revision proceeding initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against a Rajasthan agricultural marketing cooperative society, where the central dispute was whether the Assessing Officer's acceptance of an 80P(2)(d) deduction on cooperative-bank interest income amounted to an "erroneous and prejudicial" order justifying revision.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Jhunjhunu Karya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
• Date: 15 December 2022
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 263, 80P(2)
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

The appellant is a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, engaged in marketing agricultural produce grown by its members and in purchasing agricultural implements, seeds, and other inputs for supply to its members. For the assessment year 2017-18, it filed a return declaring nil income, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. During the year, the society had earned interest income of Rs. 13,00,000 on fixed deposits kept with Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., which it claimed as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

During assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1), specifically raising queries on the interest income and the 80P deduction claim. The assessee responded to these queries, and the Assessing Officer, stated to be "satisfied," passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 11.12.2019 accepting the returned income as declared.

Subsequently, the PCIT, Jaipur-2, examined the assessment record and took the view that the Assessing Officer had not verified the allowability of the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from a cooperative bank, and issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 dated 19.02.2022 proposing revision. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.02.2022 objecting to the notice, but the PCIT passed an order dated 29.03.2022 setting aside the assessment order on this specific issue, holding that the Assessing Officer had acted "in a routine and perfunctory manner" without examining the 80P(2)(d) claim, and invoking clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the PCIT validly invoked Section 263 by holding the Assessing Officer's order "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" for not independently examining the 80P(2)(d) deduction.
• Whether the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the returned income — after having specifically queried both the interest income and the Section 80P claim during assessment — amounted to application of mind, rebutting the PCIT's "routine and perfunctory" characterisation.
• Whether interest earned on fixed deposits kept with a cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
• Whether the PCIT's reliance on the Supreme Court's test in Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT for what constitutes an "erroneous" order was correctly applied to the facts on record.

---

What the court held

The Tribunal's order records, per the source classification, that the assessee's appeal was allowed. The appeal before the Tribunal challenged the PCIT's order on two fronts set out in the grounds of appeal: first, that the PCIT erred in holding the Section 143(3) assessment order dated 11.12.2019 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue; and second, that the PCIT's finding that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order "in a routine and perfunctory manner without examining the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)" was itself unjustified and based on assumptions, presumptions, and conjecture rather than the record.

The PCIT's order under Section 263 had relied on the Supreme Court's articulation in Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT that an incorrect assumption of facts, an incorrect application of law, or an order passed without application of mind can render an assessment "erroneous" for Section 263 purposes. The assessee's case, as recorded in its written submissions before the Tribunal, was that the Assessing Officer had in fact raised specific queries on both the interest income and the Section 80P claim during assessment, that these queries were duly responded to, and that the Assessing Officer was "satisfied" before accepting the returned income — a sequence inconsistent with the PCIT's characterisation of the assessment as perfunctory. The appeal culminating in the assessee's favour reflects the Tribunal's acceptance of the challenge to the PCIT's revisionary order on these grounds.

---

Strategy observations

1. The assessee filed a detailed written reply dated 28.02.2022 objecting to the Section 263 show-cause notice before the PCIT passed the revision order, creating a contemporaneous record of its objections ahead of the eventual appeal.
2. The grounds of appeal before the Tribunal challenged the PCIT's order on two independent footings — the validity of invoking Section 263 itself, and the correctness of the underlying 80P(2)(d) disallowance — giving the Tribunal more than one basis on which to grant relief.
3. The assessee's submissions emphasised that the Assessing Officer had specifically queried both the interest income and the Section 80P claim during the original assessment, directly countering the PCIT's finding of a "routine and perfunctory" assessment that underpinned the Section 263 revision.
4. The appeal grounds reserved liberty to add, alter, or amend grounds before the hearing, a standard procedural safeguard recorded in the order.
5. Researchers examining this ruling for precedent value should note that the Tribunal's detailed reasoning on the application of the Malabar Industries test to the specific facts is best confirmed against the full certified order.

---

Why this case matters

The case sits within a recurring pattern of Section 263 litigation involving cooperative societies claiming deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from deposits with cooperative banks — a recurring flashpoint in Indian tax administration given divergent views on whether such banks qualify as "cooperative societies" for deduction purposes. The ruling also illustrates how the twin-condition test from Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT — that an order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue — is applied (and contested) where the Assessing Officer has, on the record, raised specific queries on the very issue the Commissioner later treats as unexamined.

For researchers tracking Section 263 jurisprudence, this order is a useful illustration of how a documented query-and-response trail during the original assessment can be deployed to resist a revisionary finding that the assessment was passed without application of mind.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178162220/