GOPALKRISHNA PATSANSTHA,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SATARA

in Sahkari Patsanstha”, as against the name of the assessee in the PAN as “Gopalkrishna Patsanstha”. Some difference was also noticed in the date of incorporation. He, therefore, held the assessee to be disentitled to the claim u/s 80P. In the first appeal, ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee applied for the PAN with correct name. However, the name of assessee came to be entered in the changed manner at the time of issuance of PAN certificate. He thus held this aspect in favour of the assessee. Regarding the difference in the date as per the Registration document, being, 22.02.1990 and the date of incorporation mentioned in PAN data base as 20.02.1990, the ld. CIT(A) held that the correct date appears to have been mentioned. However, to resolve the controversy about the correct date of registration, he directed the AO to make proper enquiry and verification of the certificate of registration from the concerned officer of the Department i.e. the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Dahiwadi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara. The claim of the assessee was allowed subject to such verification. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard both the sides and perused the record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee‟s contention of the eligibility to the deduction u/s 80P - both on account of difference in the name as per the Registration certificate and as per PAN data base; and also towards difference in the date. He, however, directed the AO to make enquiry and verification of the correct date of registration from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Dahiwadi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara, for which purpose the matter was sent back. As per law, the ld. CIT(A) has no power to send the matter back to the file of the AO for verification. Whatever is required to be done, should be done by him alone and in case any further enquiry or verification, he is entitled to call for a remand report from the AO. He, however, cannot send the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision. Apart from this technically erroneous approach of the ld. CIT(A) in not getting a remand report from the AO but asking him to verify the same, the decision on the facts of the case, in principle, is correct. In the absence of a decision by the ld. CIT(A) without examining this factual aspect on this score, the Tribunal would have ordinarily remitted the matter to the AO for examining this aspect, which the ld. CIT(A) did. The crux of the matter is that though the decision of ld. CIT(A) in remitting the matter to the file of AO is not correct, but the line of thinking is correct.

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