Jhunjhunu Karya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti vs PCIT: ITAT Jaipur on Section 263 Revision and Section 80P(2) Deduction for Co-operative Societies

This case study examines the ITAT Jaipur order in Jhunjhunu Karya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2 (ITA No. 150/JP/2022), decided on 15 December 2022. At its core, the case addresses whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax validly exercised revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 to set aside an assessment order that had allowed a Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits held with a co-operative bank. The outcome has direct relevance to the recurring tension between the PCIT's revisionary powers and the finality of a scrutiny assessment where the Assessing Officer has actively applied mind to the issue under examination.

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

Jhunjhunu Karya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jhunjhunu, is a co-operative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Its stated business is the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members and the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, and other articles intended for agricultural purposes for supply to its members. For Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee e-filed a return on 29 November 2017 declaring nil income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS.

The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 9 August 2018, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) along with a questionnaire. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO raised queries specifically including those relating to interest income earned by the assessee and the Section 80P deduction claimed. The assessee responded to these queries through written submissions filed electronically. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned interest on fixed deposits (FDR) kept with M/s. Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. The AO, being satisfied with the assessee's explanations, completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on 11 December 2019, accepting the returned income and allowing the Section 80P(2)(d) deduction of Rs. 13,00,000/- on the said interest income.

Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, on examination of the assessment records, observed that the AO had allowed the deduction on interest income received from Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited without, in the PCIT's view, having properly verified the allowability of the claim. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 dated 19 February 2022, proposing that the benefit of Section 80P(2)(d) had been wrongly granted. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28 February 2022 objecting to the issuance of the notice. The PCIT, however, set aside the assessment order by order dated 29 March 2022, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, invoking clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly invoked when the Assessing Officer had, during scrutiny proceedings, specifically raised queries on the interest income and the Section 80P deduction and was satisfied with the assessee's responses before passing the assessment order under Section 143(3).
• Whether the AO's assessment order could be characterised as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue" within the meaning of Section 263 where the AO had actively examined the relevant issue rather than passing the order in a routine or perfunctory manner.
• Whether the deduction of Rs. 13,00,000/- claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from M/s. Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. was correctly allowed by the AO in the assessment order dated 11 December 2019.

---

What the court held

The ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the PCIT's revision order. The Tribunal's dispositive finding runs in favour of the assessee, consistent with the outcome_reasoning recorded as "appeal was allowed."

The central reasoning that emerges from the source is that the AO did not pass the assessment order in a routine or perfunctory manner. As the assessee's written submissions before the Tribunal detailed, the AO had specifically raised queries during the course of assessment proceedings with respect to the interest income earned by the assessee and the Section 80P deduction claimed, and the assessee had duly responded to those queries. Having examined the submissions and documents, the AO passed the Section 143(3) order accepting the returned income. On this factual premise, the foundational condition for Section 263 jurisdiction — that the order is "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" — was not met, because an order passed after active inquiry and application of mind does not fall within the category of an erroneous order merely because the PCIT would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts.

The PCIT's order had relied on the Supreme Court's observation in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (referenced by its citation "Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR" in the PCIT's own findings reproduced in the Tribunal order) to the effect that an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law, or orders passed without application of mind, satisfy the requirement of being "erroneous." However, the Tribunal's allowance of the appeal indicates it found that this standard was not met on the facts: the AO had applied mind to the specific issue of the Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on FDR interest from the co-operative bank, and the PCIT's characterisation of the assessment as having been passed "in a routine and perfunctory manner" was rejected.

---

Strategy observations

1. The assessee raised a jurisdictional objection at the earliest stage — a detailed reply dated 28 February 2022 was filed in response to the Section 263 show-cause notice objecting to the issuance of the notice itself. This placed on record the assessee's position that the pre-conditions for Section 263 jurisdiction were not satisfied, a position the Tribunal ultimately accepted.

2. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's authorised representative filed written submissions that systematically reconstructed the course of the scrutiny assessment — establishing that the AO had issued a questionnaire, raised specific queries on interest income and the Section 80P claim, received responses, and only then passed the Section 143(3) order. This factual reconstruction was central to displacing the PCIT's finding that the assessment was perfunctory.

3. The assessee's written submissions reproduced the relevant provisions of Section 80P before the Tribunal, anchoring the deduction claim in the statutory text. This approach of grounding the argument in the statutory language alongside the procedural record appears, per the source, to have been the framework within which the Tribunal analysed the PCIT's revision order.

4. The case illustrates that a limited scrutiny assessment (CASS-selected) where the AO issues a questionnaire and raises specific queries on the contested issue is procedurally distinguishable from an assessment passed without any examination — a distinction that bears directly on whether Section 263 jurisdiction can be invoked on the same issue.

5. An additional ground was reserved by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal (Ground 3: leave to add, alter, modify or amend grounds), a standard procedural step in ITAT proceedings that preserves flexibility in the conduct of the appeal.

---

Why this case matters

This order contributes to the body of ITAT jurisprudence delimiting the boundaries of the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263, specifically in the context of co-operative societies claiming Section 80P(2)(d) deductions on interest earned from co-operative banks. The Section 80P(2)(d) deduction for interest income from co-operative banks has been a recurring subject of PCIT revision proceedings across jurisdictions, often on the ground that Assessing Officers allowed the deduction without adequate examination. The Jaipur Bench's order reinforces the principle that where a scrutiny assessment has involved active inquiry by the AO — including issuance of a questionnaire and examination of the assessee's responses specifically on the contested issue — the PCIT cannot subsequently characterise the same order as having been passed "without application of mind" merely because the PCIT disagrees with the conclusion reached.

For tax researchers, this case is a useful data point in the Section 263 landscape at the ITAT level: it demonstrates that the "erroneous and prejudicial" threshold is not met where the factual record shows prior examination of the very issue targeted by the revision, and that the assessee's ability to demonstrate this procedural history — through the questionnaire, the queries, and the responses filed — is decisive to the outcome. The case arose from AY 2017-18 and was decided in December 2022, placing it in a period of heightened PCIT revisionary activity following the 2015 amendments to Section 263's Explanation 2.

---

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/