PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT BUDIHAL,GOKAK vs. ITO WARD-1 GOKAK, GOKAK

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Kanpur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2021-22.

2 ITA No.320/PAN/2026

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) in an ex-parte order erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P of Income Tax Act 1961 made by A.O in an order u/s 143(1). 2. The claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act made in ROI filed in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act is justified based on order u/s 119 dated 30.05.2024. 3. Non appearance before CIT(A) and delay in filing this appeal is due to genuine circumstances as stated in the Affidavit and the Appellant prays for an opportunity to be heard on merits. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.”

3 ITA No.320/PAN/2026

Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.3,28,320/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. Vide intimation order dated 13.12.2024, CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) of the IT Act wherein deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act was denied. 5. Being aggrieved with the above intimation order dated 13.12.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), since the assessee could not appear on the dates of hearing provided by Ld. CIT(A) since he was not aware about the dates of hearing

4 ITA No.320/PAN/2026

provided by Ld. CIT(A). It is the contention of the counsel of the assessee that the e-mail ID which was registered on the income tax portal pertains to one of the employee of the society namely Mr. Suresh F. Talwar who did not informed the office bearers of the society regarding dates of hearing and the appeal was heard ex-parte for want of prosecution. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld.

5 ITA No.320/PAN/2026

CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 20th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.20 17:15:04 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. Addl./JCIT(A), Kanpur. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.