DAKSHATA POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATNSANSTHA M NANDED,NANDED vs. ITO WARD (1) , NANDED

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1855/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 January 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) may have lacked the specific jurisdiction to restore the matter, in the interest of justice, the issue of the correctness of the deduction claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) should be restored to the file of the AO for necessary verification, considering the lack of requisite details furnished by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) which directed the AO to verify the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee argues that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to set aside the matter to the AO and that it was unable to submit documents due to time limitations imposed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to set aside the matter to the AO, and if not, how to proceed with the verification of the deduction claim when necessary details were not provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Adv. Bashiruddin Shaikh
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

आदेश / ORDER PER Dr. Manish Borad, AM :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25-06-2024 which is arising out of order filed u/s 250 against the Order of AO u/s 144 of Income Tax Act. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2.

1.

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] grante the appellant a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the ord dated 06-06-2024 to produce the relevant documents supporting the claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the sa direction is illegal and beyond the Jurisdiction of CIT(A).

1. 2. Ld. CITYA) passed appeal order with direction; however, the appellant w not aware that the appeal order had been passed with such a time-bou directive. Due to this time limit, the appellant was unable to submit relevant documents within the stipulated time frame, leading to insufficient submission.

3. The Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), while passing the order dated 25-06-20 to give effect to the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi's order dated 06/06/2024 the Assessment Year 2020-21, has made a modification in assessment order under section 144 read with section 144B of the Inec Tax Act, 1961, dated 28/09/2022. This modification, which resultec an addition of Rs.4,35,85,085/-, is respectfully submitted to be a gu violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The Appellate Craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, rew substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessar the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on Para 9 stated that Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer. He further prayed that since necessary details were not filed before the AO in support of the claim of deduction of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the issue raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the file of AO for necessary verification. 3(a) Ld. DR failed to controvert the contentions given by Ld. counsel of the assessee.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee is engaged in accepting, depositing and providing credit facilities to its members and has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved with the finding of LD. CIT(A) restoring the issue of correctness of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) had no such powers under the Act to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO).

5.

We however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case observe that the assessee had not furnished requisite details of the case before both the authorities to prove the correctness of the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs. 4,34,82,376/- However in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we deem it proper to restore the issue raised on merit before us to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for making necessary verification of the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Further the assessee is directed to place necessary details on the date of hearing and should not take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable clause. Assessee is also directed to ensure that its correct email address and Mobile No. are updated on the Income Tax Website (In case they are changed).

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →