आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1143/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2015-16)

The Ookal Farmers Service VS. ITO, Cooperative Society Limited, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal.

PAN: AACAT0993J (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1144/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2016-17)

The Ookal Farmers Service VS. ITO, Cooperative Society Limited, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal.

PAN: AACAT0993J (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1145/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2018-19)

The Ookal Farmers Service VS. ITO, Cooperative Society Limited, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal.

PAN: AACAT0993J (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate and करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate Assessee Represented by : Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee society are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 29/04/2025, 09/05/2025 and 13/05/2025, which in turn arise from the respective orders passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 31/01/2024 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, and under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15/02/2025 for AY 2018-19. As a common issue is involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal for the AY 2015-16, ITA No.1143/Hyd/2025, and the order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purpose of disposing of the other appeals. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;

2) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Warangal who has no jurisdiction and therefore, the assessment order passed is not valid;

3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing an amount of Rs.8,54,815/ representing the gross interest and further erred in holding that the said amount is not allowable to be deducted u/s 80P of the I.T. Act.

4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the gross amount of interest cannot separately be assessed and only the net amount of interest after deducting the expenditure arising out of the said amount is only taxable under the head "interest";

5) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;”

2. Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal, which is common in all three captioned appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 1143, 1144 and 1145/Hyd/2025, that reads as under:

“1) The notice u/s 148 issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Warangal is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the consequent assessment made is invalid.”

3. As the assessee, by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal, has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue which will not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).

4. Succinctly