SRI. KANAKA PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, TUMKUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 739/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 November 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent its case. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for AY 2018-19. The AO denied this deduction, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-receipt of hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 21.11.2023Pronounced: 21.11.2023

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 08.08.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee is a co-operative society. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,29,954/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee electronically. Three notices were also issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since there was no response to the notices issued by the AO, assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 16.04.2021. In the said Assessment Order, the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was denied.

3.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits, since assessee did not file any written submissions in spite of several notices issued from the Office of the FAA.

4.

Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices issued electronically as same might have been settled in ‘spam’ folder of the assessee’s emails. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case.

5.

The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

6.

I have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The Assessment Order has been passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. It is a claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails which were deleted periodically due to constrains of space. I am of the view that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee to represent its case. Therefore, I restore this matter to the files of the AO. Assessee is directed to co-operative with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →