DAKAI DAHALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1787/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 March 2025AY 2016-20173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had taken the stand that advance tax had not been paid. While the assessee had submitted that they were not required to pay advance tax due to income exemption under Section 80P, the Tribunal decided not to go into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, and considering the assessee's request to file their explanation before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was at liberty to file all necessary documents in support of their claim. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dakai Dahala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee's representative stated that there was a mistaken impression that a return of income was not required to be filed, and they intended to file it. The assessee also submitted that they believed no advance tax was payable as their income was exempt under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee requested that the issues be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, arguing that the CIT(A) had not considered the matter in the correct perspective. The revenue's representative opposed this, arguing that the return had not been filed and no further opportunity should be granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be allowed to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's submission that a return was not filed due to a mistaken impression and their intention to file it, and that advance tax was not paid based on a belief of exemption under Section 80P. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was a mistaken impression regarding the necessity of filing a return of income and that they intended to file it. They also submitted that advance tax was not paid because they believed their income was exempt under Section 80P. The assessee prayed for the issues to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to allow them to explain their position and present necessary documents. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue vehemently opposed the assessee's prayer, submitting that the return of income itself had not been filed and that the assessee should not be granted another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 27.03.2025Pronounced: 27.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : None (withdrawal application filed) Respondent by : Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053282263(1) dated 29.05.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that there was a mistaken impression that the assessee did not have to file its return of income and consequently the return was not filed. However, they have been advised that the return Dakai Dahala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2016-17 has to be filed and they are proposing to file the return. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter in its right perspective. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken the stand that advance tax is liable to be paid but no advance tax was paid. It was the prayer that if the issues are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee would be in a position to explain before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed to the prayer of the assessee. It was the submission that the return of income itself has not been filed. It was the submission that the assessee should not be given another opportunity.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a stand that the advance tax has not been paid. Even though the assessee has filed a letter submitting that the assessee was not required to make any payment of advance tax as the assessee’s income was exempted u/s. 80P of the Act. However, without going into the merits of the case, as the assessee has requested for filing his explanation before the ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is at liberty to file all necessary documents in support of its claim before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →