KUNDAL TALUKA SAHAKARI KHAREDI VIKRI SANGH LTD.,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), SINDHUDURG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 436/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 February 2022AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the merits, leading to the present appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits of the case, especially when the assessee is absent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two appeals by the assessee arise out of separate orders passed by the CIT(A) on 03-10-2019 in relation to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2007-08. 2. There is a delay of 138 days in presenting the appeals before the Tribunal. Two separate affidavits have been filed giving reasons for the delay, with which I am satisfied. The delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2009-10 are that the assessee filed its return declaring total income at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite service of notice. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without discussing merits of the grounds and thus dismissed the appal in limine. This course of action is not open to the ld. CIT(A). If the assessee was absent, the ld. CIT(A) was supposed to dispose of the appeal on merits even though ex-parte. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

The ld. DR fairly admitted that the facts and circumstances of the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 are mutatis mutandis similar to the other year involved here. Following the view taken hereinabove, I set aside the impugned order with similar directions as given for the A.Y. 2009-10.

6.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st February, 2022.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 01st February, 2022 GCVSR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →