Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals by different assessees for the assessment year 2017-18 directed against two different orders of NFAC dated 30.10.2023 and 2.8.2023. 2. The issue in these appeals is common in nature. Hene, the grounds of appeal in , are reproduced as under:
& 991/Bang/2023 Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakar Sangh Niyamit Arakeri, Bijapur Page 2 of 4 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and liable to be set aside. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant and went ahead to make a disallowance u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) 2. without appreciating the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizen Co-op Society is not squarely applicable to the appellant's case. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the 4. appellant was entitled to the exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act since it is a society providing credit facilities to its members only and the society was not carrying on business -of banking.
The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant society has not violated any provisions u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same are enforced in the by-laws of the society. 6 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions /made u/s.69A of the Act without considering the facts submitted by the appellant.
The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation given by 7. the appellant regarding cash deposits made in BDCC Bank and as such should have refrained from confirming the additions made u/s.69Aofthe Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact the cash 8. deposits made were genuine and that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to prove the source of such deposits and therefore should not have confirmed the additions made by the AO.
Without prejudice, the disallowances/ additions are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full.
The Id. AO erred in applying the provision of section 1 15BBE of the Act 10. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing 11. of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. TOTAL TAX EFFECT Appeal filing details Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, please attach 11 application seeking condonation of delay)
The appeal in there was a delay of 62 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition stating as follows: & 991/Bang/2023 Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakar Sangh Niyamit Arakeri, Bijapur Page 3 of 4 “2. The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals) dated 02/08/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 before the Hon'ble Tribunal, In this connection the Appellant received a Defect Notice stating that there is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal for which condonation application has not been filed. 3. In this connection it is brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the impugned order of the CIT{A) was received on 03/08/2023 and the appeal has to be filed on or before the 1.10.2023 but the same was filed on 01.12.2023 by causing delay of 62 days.
4. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal has occurred on account of the fact that I was no knowing the order is received and all the papers with my auditor when auditor has sent me the papers for signature that time I was out of station in connection with family function even though the appeal was prepared in advance to be filed before the Tribunal and the appeal papers were kept ready for my signature and only on my return from out station, the appeal was signed by me and immediately without further loss of time the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 01.12.23, causing a delay of 62 days. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and it was on account of bona fide reason stated above.”
3.1 I have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee. I find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing this appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. Considering the short delay of 62 days, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The main issue in this appeal is with regard to granting of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and also deposit of SBN notes to assessee’s bank account during demonetization. In my opinion, the assessment order is ex-parte passed u/s 144 of the Act. The order of the NFAC is very cryptic not addressing all the issues raised by the assessee. Being so, in the interest of justice, I remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. AO to examine the issue in the light of CBDT Circular No.3/2017 dated 21.1.2017 and decide the issue afresh. He is also required to examine granting of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in accordance with law. & 991/Bang/2023 Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakar Sangh Niyamit Arakeri, Bijapur Page 4 of 4 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Dec, 2023