THE SHUKAN LOTUS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

“7.2 I have carefully gone through the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, Grounds of appeal as well as the relevant provisions of law. 7.3 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not made any compliance in response to notices issued by the undersigned. In absence of the written submission/argument and evidence, it remained to be unexplained as to how the CPC’s order is erroneous. If the appellant-society claims that it is eligible for any claim it should have furnished supporting documents. Making claim in the grounds of appeal that the adjustments made by the CPC was bad in law does not make the intimation order invalid unless the appellant-society proves so, with supporting evidence. The Appellant has failed to do so in spite of issuing as many as four notices/communications. Therefore, in absence of evidence, the grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal cannot be accepted on its face value. The appellate proceedings are first line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has been done by the CPC. However, the appellant failed to avail the same by non-complying. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant-society has not availed of the opportunities given to it. Therefore, it is assumed that the appellant-society is not interested in pursuing its own appeal. Moreover, the appellant failed to bring on records any facts or documents which can explain how the adjustment(s) made by the CPC in intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, is erroneous. But it is noted that the appellant-society chose not to comply on the issue involved in the present appeal till the date for the reason best known to it. 7.4 Mere claiming that the CPC erred in making the adjustments does not give an edge to the appellant. Further, during appellate proceedings, no proper response/submission has been received from the appellant-society to substantiate its claim in support of grounds of appeal though adequate/reasonable/sufficient opportunities of being heard were given to it. 7.5 In the case of Anil Goel Vs CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:

4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given.

5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular Engineering Co. vs. ITAT[2001] 248 ITR 577, has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give separate reasons which may be required in case the order is to be reversed by the appellate/revisional authority." 7.6 Further, during appellate proceedings, no response is received from the appellant-society to substantiate its claim in support of grounds of appeal though ample opportunities of being heard were given to it, as tabulated in Para 6.1 above. It would not be out of context to mention here that the appellant has never shown the intention to prosecute the present appeal in proper/effective manner by making participation during the appellate proceedings being conducted before the appellate authority. Opportunity of being heard is central to any adjudication process but that does not absolve the appellant from non-submission of evidences in support of ground of appeal despite repeated and several notices/communication sent and duly served upon the appellant. An adjudication proceeding cannot be held in abeyance indefinitely on account of non-compliance of the appellant. The inherent non- compliance on the part of appellant-society clearly shows that it has no argument or cogent material or corroborative documentary evidence to produce which can prove that adjustments made by the CPC in the intimation order is wrong. 7.7 Keeping in view of all the aforesaid facts & detailed discussions held herein before and in the absence of any corroborative evidence or material/submission made The Shukan Lotus Cooperative Housing Service Society Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 4– by the appellant during the course of present appellate proceedings, I do not find any reason to interfere in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC. In view of above, all the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.

8. As a result, the present appeal of the appellant is DISMISSED.”

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the contention of the assessee was that out of the total interest amount claimed on which deduction under section 80P of the act was claimed by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 1,83,277/- had been earned by the assessee as interest income on fixed deposits kept with Bank of Baroda (the Counsel for the assessee submitted / admitted that so far as this amount is concerned, the assessee society is not eligible to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act). However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that with respect to the balance amount on which interest was earned i.e. Rs. 2,88,943/- (Rs. 4,72,220 less Rs. 1,83,277), the same earned by the assessee on fixed deposits kept with Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, which is a cooperative society. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a well settled law, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject that the assessee society is eligible to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act with respect to interest income earned from District Cooperative Banks. Accordingly, so far as the interest on this amount is concerned, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act.