YALIMUNNOLI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the CIT(A) to support the Section 80P(2)(d) claim. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Co-operative Society, filed its return of income. The CPC determined the total income, and the assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity to furnish details for its Section 80P(2)(d) deduction claim.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence for its Section 80P(2)(d) claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30-11-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gulbarga [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15.
The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed return of income the CPC, Bangalore determined the total income at Rs.2,46,975/- vide its intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). He argued that the CIT(A) basing on written submissions and without giving reasonable opportunity decided the appeal ex-parte of assessee. He contended that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In this regard, there was no opportunity for the assessee to furnish the details regarding its claim u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He sought to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue by verifying relevant evidence involving the claim u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that once the appeal is decided as per material available on record, there was no need for the assessee to again go back to the ld. CIT(A) and reasonable opportunity was already given by the ld. CIT(A).
After hearing both the parties, we note that as it rightly pointed by the ld. AR there was no evidence before the CIT(A) in terms of claim u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) also disposed of grounds raised by the assessee only in terms of intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore in this respect. Since, there was no evidence on record in support of claim, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh consideration to decide the issue, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th November, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 15th November, 2021. RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), Gulbarga 4. The Pr. CIT, Belgavi ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩणजी, 5. / DR, ITAT, Panaji. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधिव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7044/MUM/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7043/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026