Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per: N.K. Choudhry, JM This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.03.2023, impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19.
In this case,the AO vide Assessment order dated 01.03.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act made the disallowances/additions of Rs.61,46,692/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively under section 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(d)(ii) of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who by issuing various notices, afforded ample opportunities to Assessee. However, the Assessee failed to avail the same and has not preferred to appear or to 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) file any reply/submission on the ITBA portal or otherwise. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, specifically to the effect that the notices issued to the Assessee were duly served upon the Assessee as per acknowledgement available on record, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appal by construing as under:
That the Assesseehas scant regard to the statutory notices issued to it. The Assessee does not want to avail the opportunity of being heard and the fact that it has failed to file any submission/document in favour of its contentions which could have been considered for decision, I am left with no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal filed by the Assessee.
The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us.
Having heard the parties andperused the material available on record, we observe that the Assessee’sclaim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Actfor the earlier years i.e. AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18, though has been allowed by the then learned CIT(A), however, being the tax effect below than the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeal before the ITAT, the Department could not file appeals for the said years. The AO still made the aforesaid additions by concluding that the Assessee bank does not fall under the purview of a Cooperative Society as referred in section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. As the learned Commissioner has not decided the appeal/issue under consideration on merits, hence we are not adverting to the same. However, for the just and proper decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
The Assessee is also directed to appear as and when would be required before the learned Commissioner and shall also file the relevant document(s) as would be needed by the learned
3 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) Commissioner for just and proper decision of the case. In case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assesseestands allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 10th August, 2023.