Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act but with PAN status as 'Firm', failed to file its return of income for AY 2013-14. The case was reopened under Section 147 due to large cash deposits, and an ex-parte assessment was made under Section 144 r.w.s. 147.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-payment of advance tax without considering the assessee's contention that no advance tax was payable and that the ex-parte assessment order disallowed legitimate deductions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting it on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax, especially when the assessee claimed no advance tax was payable and sought benefit of deductions under Section 80P.
Sections Cited
147, 142(1), 144, 69A, 249(4)(b), 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kasturi 47, Azad Maidan, Near Saibaba Temple, Jalna- 431203. PAN : ABMFS8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 04.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14.
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing.
Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available on record.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is stated to be a “cooperative society” registered under the provisions of Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, however, the PAN No. allotted to the assessee is in status of “Firm”. The assessee has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The case was reopened u/s 147 on the ground that the assessee had deposited huge cash to the tune of Rs.2,52,98,620/- in the bank account maintained with Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of above cash deposits but the assessee did not comply any of the notices. The AO completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act and determined the total income at Rs.2,52,98,620/-. The above assessed income includes addition u/s 69A of Rs.2,52,98,620/- as unexplained money deposited in bank account.
Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without admitting the same on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the conditions of payment of advance tax as specified u/s 249(4)(b) of the IT Act.
It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders passed by both the authorities & requested to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable as per section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act is to be determined at the behest of the assessee. If there is no advance tax liability according to the assessee, then he need not to deposit the same & Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is required to admit the appeal of the assessee in such an event. In the instant case, it is the claim of the assessee that since the assessee remained absent the assessment order was passed ex-parte & whatever deductions were legally available to the assessee were not allowed by the Assessing Officer. It is the contention of the assessee that being cooperative society the business income of the assessee was subject to deduction 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act and due to ex-parte order the same deductions were not allowed which resulted in determination of unnecessary taxable income in the hands of the assessee. We find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in a summery manner without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case. It was the observation of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act & when the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file any application to exempt him from payment of advance tax in the light of the fact that no advance tax is payable by him. In this regard, we find support from the decisions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari vs. ITO in order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to admit the appeal of the