MANEED SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, THODUPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/COCH/2020Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 June 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the crucial issue of the validity of the reopening of assessment. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of all issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The assessee contended that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the 'reasons to believe' were not communicated. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated this ground.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to non-communication of reasons to believe. Whether the denial of deduction u/s 80P was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23/06/2020

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kochi-2 dated 18/12/2019. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12.

2.

Two issues are raised in these appeals:

1) Whether the re-opening of the assessment is valid.

2) Whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s action in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act.

. 3. At the outset, we notice that the assessee has raised following ground before the CIT(A):

“The assessing officer ought to have communicated the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the assessing officer for initiating proceedings under section 147. However, it was not done before completion of the assessment though it was requested by the appellant and hence the assessment order is liable to be quashed.”

4.

The above ground goes to the root of the matter. We notice that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the same. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the entire issue raised in this appeal needs to be considered afresh by the CIT(A). For the above purpose, the case is restored to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee shall co-operate and shall furnish the necessary details called for by the CIT(A). Further, the assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjudication. It is ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →