SHI vs. HANKAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI CO OPERATIVE PATSANSTHA LTD,PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1167/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 December 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case with full assistance.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2) which was denied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish necessary documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Avchat
For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex parte order dated 31-08-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

It is seen that the assessment order in this case was passed u/s.143(3) of the Act denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act amounting to Rs.36,11,913/-. The ld. CIT(A), in para 7.3 of the impugned order, noted that the “Even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to furnish necessary

Shivshankar Gramin Bigarsheti Cooperative Patsanstha Ltd., documentary evidence in support of the deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i). Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary evidence forthcoming from the assessee, I am of the considered opinion that the AO rightly made the disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.36,11,913/-.

Warranting no interference of the appellate authority, Thus, the Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed.” He, therefore, dismissed the appeal ex-parte order qua the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in putting in appearance before the ld. first appellate authority. It was requested that another opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee to put forth its submissions before the ld. CIT(A).

3.

After hearing both the sides and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly. The ld. AR has undertaken that the assessee will render full assistance to the ld. first appellate authority in such fresh proceedings.

Shivshankar Gramin Bigarsheti Cooperative Patsanstha Ltd.,

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th December, 2023.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)

All 332 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →