Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh
Date of hearing : 10-11-2021 Date of pronouncement : 18-11-2021 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT(A)-3, Rakot dated 16-02-2018, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
Page No 2 Morbi Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
1.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 1,93,922/- rejecting claim made for deduction U/s 80P. The addition / disallowance needs deletion. 1.2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 31,170/- in respect of public distribution scheme. The addition / disallowance needs deletion. 1.3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 1,07,441/- in respect of commission income. The addition / disallowance needs deletion. 1.4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 55,311/- in respect of Misc. income. The addition / disallowance needs deletion.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 1,93,922/- based on factual position which is described erroneously. The addition / disallowance needs deletion.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 1,93,922/- ignoring the details furnished before him. The addition / disallowance needs deletion.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition / disallowance of Rs. 1,93,922/- based on presumption and cermices. The addition 7 disallowance needs deletion.
5. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects, no addition 7 disallowance of an amount of Rs. 1,93,922/- ought to have been made. The addition / disallowances need deletion.
Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment.
Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided at the time of assessment order. The assessment needs annulment.
8. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided at the time of appellate stage. The assessment needs annulment.”
All the grounds of appeal of the assessee are inter connected to the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,93,922/- u/s. 80P of the act, therefore, for the sake of convenience these grounds of appeal are adjudicated together by this common order.
The fact in brief is that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80P on the following income:- i)Commission Rs. 1,07,441/- ii) Miscellaneous Income Rs. 55,311/- Page No 3 Morbi Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
iii) Net Income from public Distribution SchemeRs. 31,170/- The Assessing Officer has brought to the notice of the assessee that these income did not qualify for deduction under any of the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)/(b)/(d)/(e)/(f). The Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish the supporting details to substantiate the claim of deduction u/s 80P. However, the assessee has not made required compliance before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer has partly disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P in respect of the aforesaid income.
Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has also not furnished any supporting relevant detail to substantiate the claim of deduction on the specific income as reported above. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has not attended but has filed the written submission reiterating the facts which was submitted before the lower authorities that the aforesaid income was pertained to agricultural product of the society and income from sale promotion and godown rent. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that assessee has not Page No 4 Morbi Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO never furnished the supporting detail and documents before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in its support of claim of deduction u/s. 80P. Even in its written submission there is no supporting material which could justify the claim of deduction u/s. 80P on the specific nature of income.
7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as stated above during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P in respect of commission of Rs. 1,07,441/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 55,311/- and income from public distribution scheme of Rs. 31,170/-. After perusal of the material on record it is noticed that Assessing Officer has specifically asked the assessee to submit the supporting detail pertaining to such income to justify the claim of deduction u/s. 80P, however, the assessee has not made any compliance even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not submitted any detail. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the assessee has simply stated that lower authorities has not allowed deduction u/s. 80P which was allowable on the aforesaid income. Evening during the course of appellate proceedings before us, the assessee has not filed any supporting relevant material to demonstrate that how the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P on the aforesaid specific nature of income. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in Page No 5 Morbi Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO the decision of ld. CIT(A) and this ground of appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18-11-2021