PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI MYD. TILHARI JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Per Bench: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order dated 20-12-2021 by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals (‘CIT(A)’ for short) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) vide which the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse-appellant by confirming the assessment order dated 17-12-2018 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17.

2.1 The assesse is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 for welfare of its members. As stated in the ‘Statement of Facts’ accompanying the memo of appeal to the first appellate authority (Form 1 | P a g e

ITA No. 16/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. ITO 35), the objects of the society are to protect the economic loss of its’ members, who are farmers/agriculturists doing cultivation; providing credit facilities for purchase of agriculture implements, seeds, live-stock and other articles, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. It e-filed it’s return of income for the relevant year belatedly on 12/3/2018 at nil. The said return was selected for limited scrutiny, i.e., to verify the deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, and notice u/s. 143(2) accordingly served on 11/08/2018. The assessee did not respond thereto nor to any of the subsequent notices u/s. 142(1) (sent along with questionnaires), leading to an assessment u/s. 144 on the basis of documents on record. The assessment was accordingly made at Rs. 13,43,913, i.e., by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80P.

2.2 Before the ld. CIT(A), it was explained by the assessee that non-joining the assessment proceedings was on account of being unaware of the notices u/s. 142(1), inasmuch as the same, served electronically, were at the email ID provided by the person engaged for preparing and filing the tax return, i.e., the same was not deliberate. Even as the ld. CIT(A) did not find the same very convincing – and with which we agree, he, in the interest of justice, allowed the assessee, beginning 28/12/2020, several opportunities to present its’ case before him, seeking documents, which were submitted by the assessee vide it’s reply, filed electronically, on 17/09/2021 (PB pgs.10-13), responding to the fifth such notice. The same included the objects; profit & loss account; written submissions; and the registration certificate. Subsequent notices dated 21/09/2021 and 29/11/2021 were again unresponded. As per the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had on 17/9/2021 uploaded only it’s registration certificate (RC) along with it’s submissions. In that view of the matter, he was constrained to decide the matter on the basis of the material on record; the RC surely did not substantiate the assessee’s claim u/s. 80P disallowed in assessment. The same was accordingly confirmed, leading to the instant appeal.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 16/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. ITO 3.1 The assessee’s principal grievance before us is the prejudice caused to it due to non-consideration of the materials furnished in the appellate proceedings. As apparent from the e-proceedings response acknowledgments (PB, pg.10), the documents enumerated above (para 2.2), i.e., other than the registration certificate, were also uploaded by the assessee along with its reply dated 17/09/2021. As apparent, the documents other than the registration certificate were not received by the ld. CIT(A), resulting in his observation to that effect. We have also perused the notices dated 21/09/2021 & 29/11/2021, copies of which were sought and made part of the Tribunal’s record, to find that they did not call for any further information from the assessee. 4.2 In our view, the assessee, though definitely not in earnest, has before the ld. CIT(A) not acted in disregard of it’s obligations. Non-receipt, though submitted, of the documents by the said authority, which led him to decide the matter summarily, i.e., without regard to the merits of the case, which thus remained essentially unrepresented, could be a result of technical glitches. Under the circumstances, we consider it proper that the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a decision afresh on merits in accordance with law per a speaking order after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We notice that the assessing authority (AO) had also called for certain specific details – not furnished before him, in the assessment proceedings. The first appellate authority may, in it’s discretion, call for any document/material deemed relevant for verification of the assessee’s claim u/s. 80-P, to verify which the assessee’s return was selected for scrutiny, as also to cause, in it’s discretion, verification by the AO, who shall also in that case allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Needless to add, the assessee shall fully cooperate in the set aside proceedings, also furnishing it’s email id to both the authorities for the purpose.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 16/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. ITO

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.

4 | P a g e