MM340 ANAMPATTY PACCS,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 169 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the office bearers and the employees of the assessee are rural residents who have limited familiarity with the faceless and electronic regime of proceedings adopted by the income tax department. Further, the ld.AR stated that the practice of service of notices

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society and did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20. As per the information available with the department, the AO noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,15,51,386/- during the assessment year. Hence, the case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2019- 20, declaring total income of Rs.NIL and claimed deduction of Rs.28,04,157/- u/s.80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee partly submitted its reply along with supporting documents. On verification of the documents submitted by the assessee, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 19.03.2024 by making a disallowance of claim u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.28,04,157/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 21.08.2024.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer based on the submissions made in Form 35, without any participation of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee without participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer also has passed the assessment order denying the

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the part submission made by the assessee and the information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to the assessee failing to provide any documentary evidence during the appellate proceedings.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.