PIMPRAD VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SEVA SOCIETY ,SATARA vs. ACIT CIRCLE SATARA, SATARA

There is a delay of 271 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31.12.2021 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.36,21,232/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 19.06.2022 by accepting the income returned. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS. Despite statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by disallowing the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.36,21,232/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also brought to tax an amount of Rs.4,09,52,278/- being the unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Since, despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him, dismissed the appeal by following the decision

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that both the orders of lower authorities are ex-parte orders. She submitted that the assessee, AOP is a farmers’ co-operative society basically registered under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. Due to ignorance about the tax law and the procedure, the assessee could not comply to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which all these unfortunate events happened. She submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not appear for which the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act. Similarly, due to non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he was constrained to pass the ex-parte order dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to his satisfaction and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have decided the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the SA filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

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

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.