Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी. दुगा� राव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� के सम� । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.948/Chny/2022 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Producers MKG Society Ltd., Income Tax, 171, Lalgudi, Tiruchirapalli 621 601. Circle 1(1), Trichy. [PAN:AAAAT0204A] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 10.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 21.09.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is bad and erroneous in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the written submissions filed by the appellant in proper perspective. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the vital and material fact that out of the denial deduction u/s.80P(2)(e), Rs.2,38,907/- pertains to
2 I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/22
godown rent, which is eligible for deduction under that section even from a plain reading of that sub-section. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the sum of Rs.20,06,395/-, out of the total denial of deduction of Rs.22,45,302/-, being PDS margin (Margin from the business of Public Distribution System), which is otherwise allowable u/s. 80P(2(a)(i) in view of the decisions by the Madras High Court in TCA N: 571 of 2011 and TCA No:1453 of 2008. Copy of the said decisions are attached herewith. And for other grounds of appeal that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be admitted, submissions be considered and justice be rendered. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 01.01.2018 claiming exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] to the tune of ₹.1,15,33,167. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019 assessing total income at ₹.1,15,33,167/- by rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act since the assessee could not upload/produce details of books of accounts, bank statement, bills and vouchers for the expenses. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, while confirming the addition of ₹.22,45,302/- made under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act since the assessee could not offer any explanation, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act of ₹.92,87,865/- [(80P(2)(a)(i) of ₹.82,89,210 + 80P(2)(c) of
3 I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/22
₹.1,00,000 and 80P(2)(d) of ₹.8,98,655].
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By producing books of accounts before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce all relevant details before the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has not filed all relevant details before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). However, while allowing the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act of ₹.92,87,865/- [(80P(2)(a)(i) of ₹.82,89,210 + 80P(2)(c) of ₹.1,00,000 and 80P(2)(d) of ₹.8,98,655], the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹.22,45,302/- towards disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act since the assessee has failed to offer any explanation with regard to the above deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee shall be afforded one more opportunity to produce all relevant details before the Assessing Officer to
4 I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/22
substantiate its case in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the claim of deduction made under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by considering relevant details as may be filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all relevant details/suitable explanations before the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17th May, 2023 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.05.2023 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.