HERGA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARI,PARKALA, UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI, UDUPI

Since the assessee is same, and the issues are common and identical, these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is passed. Firstly, we take up appeal in ITA No.333/Bang/2026 for Assessment Year 2011-12 as the lead appeal and the facts are culled out therefrom.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members. The assessee filed its return of income on 22.10.2018 in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, declaring Nil income and after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.21,23,009/-. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for details and documents as per attached questionnaire. In response, the assessee’s representative appeared from time to time and produced the details and documents called for by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, after examining the information furnished by the assessee, observed that assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Vs. Income-Tax Officer reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC). The Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee and treated it as “Income from Other Sources”.

On being aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was the contention of the assessee that it had filed written submissions supporting the grounds of appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not complied with any of the notices and therefore by relying on the decision of the Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in ([2017] 84 taxmann.com 114 (SC)), dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:

The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions filed by the assessee while dismissing of the appeal. He also submitted that Ld. AR of the assessee personally attended the appeal proceedings at Panaji and physically submitted the written submissions along with supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.6.2024. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has issued another noticed on 09.12.2025 posting the hearing on 16.12.2025 but has not considered the documents submitted in the Income Tax Portal as evidenced by the acknowledgment available on record. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the material evidence or written submissions filed by the assessee. He therefore prayed that the impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the Orders of the Revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that assessee has furnished written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) along with documentary evidences supporting the grounds of appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made by the assessee while disposing of the appeal. The grievance of the Ld. AR is the Ld. CIT(A), Panaji, has also not considered the documents physically submitted during the hearing on 12.06.2024. We find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are of the considered view that assessee shall be provided with an opportunity of being heard and therefore remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, afresh. Since ground No.9 has been adjudicated by setting aside the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restoring the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are left open.

Considering the identicalness of the issues involved in all these appeals, our decision rendered while adjudicating the appeal in ITA No. 333/Bang/2026 (supra) applies mutatis mutandis to the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 348,395, 480/Bang/2026 also.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.