What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no clear statement from the assessee supporting the Revenue's claim and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details.

The assessee, a cooperative society, was denied a maturity benefit by the Assessing Officer, leading to an estimated profit on gas, fuel, and other items. The assessee argued that its activities were solely for its members, while the Revenue contended otherwise.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee cooperative society was entitled to a maturity benefit on its fuel station operations, and if its activities were exclusively for members.

Ordnance Factory Medak Consumers… vs ITO | ITAT Hyderabad 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Hearing: 20/09/2021Pronounced: 20/10/2021

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y 2017-18 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 20.08.2020 in case No.13093/2019-20/CIT(A)-2 involving proceedings under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”).

Heard both parties. Case file(s) perused.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in affirming the Assessing Officer’s action denying its maturity benefit thereby restraining 8% profit estimation coming to Rs.67,42,760/- pertaining to gas, fuel and other items to the extent of Rs.27,36,085/-, we note that the lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under :

Learned counsel’s solitary argument before us is that the assessee has been wrongfully denied maturity benefit despite the fact that it had been carried out all its activities including running of petrol station for the benefit of its members only. The Revenue’s stand on the other hand is that the assessee had itself stated to have been running the fuel station for general public than for its members exclusive uses. We do not find any such statement coming from the assessee side along with corresponding by-laws and allotment conditions in the case files.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the condition that it itself fill all the necessary details.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th October, 2021.

ORDNANCE FACTORY MEDAK CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDAK vs. ITO WARD 1 SANGAREDDY, SANGAREDDY

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments