THE MAPUSA MERCHANT URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MAPUSA, GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), PANAJI, GOA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 90/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to restore the matter to the CIT(A) due to a lack of sufficient opportunity to be heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Credit Co-operative Society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) which was disallowed by the CPC. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and whether the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was wrongly disallowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri S.J. Kamat (Virtual)
For Respondent: Smt Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पणजी में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.90/PAN/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Mapusa Merchant Deputy Commissioner of Urban Co-operative Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Panaji, Goa Shop No. S-24, Market Yard, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa, Mapusa-403507 Goa PAN-AAALT0105F अपीलार्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.J. Kamat (Virtual) Department by : Smt Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR (Virtual) Date of hearing : 12-06-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30-07-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by Ld. Addl. Joint CIT(A)/NFAC, for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law.

2 ITA No.90/PAN/2026

2.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the non-allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of Interest Rs. 28,72,840/- received from co-operative banks. 3. In the alternative to ground 2 hereinabove, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not directing the respondent to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest received from banks, including Co-operative Banks, the same being business income of the appellant in the business of providing credit facilities. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an adverse order without issuing hearing notices on the email id "pradiplad100@gmail.com" provided by the appellant in Form 35, resulting in insufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned order ignoring the binding ratio of various judgements, thus rendering the impugned order per incuriam. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, delete from or modify the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Credit Co- operative Society and has furnished its return of income on 31.10.2019 by declaring income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 36,31,133/- u/s 80P(2)d of the IT Act. The CPC vide rectified intimation order dated 28.11.2024 disallowed deduction u/s 80P(2)d of the IT Act.

4.

Being aggrieved with the above intimation order the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse without going into merits of the case. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard we find that it is the sole

3 ITA No.90/PAN/2026

request of the counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal, since earlier Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution for which the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not appearing before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the dates of hearing. Accordingly it was prayed by Ld. Counsel of the assessee to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case we find some force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee and accordingly in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set aside the 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)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 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.

4 ITA No.90/PAN/2026

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे /Pune; दिन ांक /Dated: 30th July, 2026. Neeta Neeta Milind Digitally signed by Neeta Milind Shirsath Shirsath Date: 2026.07.30 13:32:33 +05'30' आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, "एस एम सी " बेंच, पणजी DR, ITAT, "SMC" Bench, Panaji. / 5. ग र्ड फ इल / Guard File.

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

सह यक रदजस्ट्र र/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, पणजी / ITAT, Panaji

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →