Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 10.2.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds:
1. “That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal without providing the appellant a fair opportunity to being heard which is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax passed an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254 without considering the directions issued by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 0. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the request of the appellant by keeping appeal proceedings in abeyance till the appeals before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court disposed off.
M/s. Regional Oilseeds Grower’s Co-operative Society Union Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 4 5. Grounds regarding jurisdiction: 5.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the order passed by the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Davanagere is without jurisdiction and hence order is liable to be quashed. 5.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assuming the jurisdiction without passing an order u/s.127 r.w.s 120(4)(b) of the Act for transfer of the jurisdiction is not a curable mistake and hence the order passed is liable to be quashed.
Grounds regarding deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act: 6.1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in affirming the decision of the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax by denying the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s.80P (2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 6.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by treating the appellant society as federation of co-operative societies and denying the exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 6.3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying the deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act by stating that the appellant did not claim the same in the original return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 6.4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant deals with the nominal members and hence principal of mutuality is missing and therefore not entitled for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 6.5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in appreciating the fact that as per the definition of member u/s.2(f) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959 member includes a nominal member and an associate member. 6.6. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by denying the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act even tough the appellant supplied oil seeds purchased to the members of the society for agricultural activities. 6.7. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying the deduction by stating that the oil seeds purchased are not supplied directly to the farmers even though for claiming deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act it is sufficient if the appellant proves that the purchase of oil seeds is intended for agriculture and supplied to the members of the society. 6.8. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts that the appellant is not entitled to Sec.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act on the ground that the appellant not proved that the sale of seeds is meant for agriculture purposes. 6.9. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the purchases and sales are seeds, fertilizers would show that these items are meant for agriculture which is obvious and need not be proved.”
M/s. Regional Oilseeds Grower’s Co-operative Society Union Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 4 2. Originally assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of AO for giving opportunity to the assessee. Consequent to the order of Tribunal, assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 20.12.2019, wherein the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act has been rejected. Against this assessee carried the appeal to NFAC. The NFAC given various notices to the assessee as follows but there was no compliance from the assessee:
Notice issued u/s 250 Issued date Fixing for Remarks hearing ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2020- 27.01.2021 11.02.2021 Un- 21/1030101210(1) complied by assessee ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2022- 06.02.2023 10.02.2023 Un- 23/1049471552(1) complied by assessee 2.1 Before us, assessee submitted that Principal Officer of the assessee company was not conversant with the ITBA portal and sought one more opportunity to represent before NFAC. We accede to the request of the ld. A.R. Accordingly, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2023