RAMTANU NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHPEDI LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1992/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it for non-prosecution. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative credit society, appealed to the ITAT after the CIT(A) dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 50,000 and disallowed deduction under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case, specifically regarding the addition for provision towards NPA fund and disallowance of deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Wajale
Pronounced: 08.10.2020

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 31.12.2018, pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14, wherein after noting that the assessee has not responded to the notices for hearing and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.50,000/- in respect of provision towards NPA fund.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ramtanu Nagari Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd.vs. ITO

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a corporative credit society. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) was of the opinion that sub section (4) of section 80P is attracted and accordingly inter alia denied the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The A.O. did not deal with the case law referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee.

4.

Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by cryptically observing as under:

6. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not complied to any of the notices as stated above nor any submissions were made. Hence, it can be inferred that the assessee has nothing to say in support of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, there is no to deviate from the order of the A.O. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14 is confirmed. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are dismissed.

5.

Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

6.

I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the material available on record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has basically dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution and he has not decided upon the merits of the case.

Moreover, the issue whether section 80P, sub section (4) is attracted in the case of co- operative credit society is already been dealt with by several decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts.

7.

In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served the issue is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate upon the merits of the issues in appeal after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and thereafter he shall pass a speaking order.

Ramtanu Nagari Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd.vs. ITO

8.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board on 08.10.2020.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →