Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a primary agricultural co-operative society, filed its return for AY 2019-20, which was declared defective under Section 139(9). Despite rectification, the CPC disallowed deduction under Section 80P. The CIT(A) affirmed the CPC's order without properly addressing the assessee's contention that the disallowance was erroneous and the issue debatable.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without dealing with the issues involved. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, granting the assessee a meaningful opportunity of being heard, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P by CPC and CIT(A) was justified without proper adjudication or opportunity of being heard, and whether the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic.
Sections Cited
139(9), 80P, 80P(2)(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2019-2020 The Kozhippara Service Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Bank Limited v. Ward -4 11/139, Kozhippara Palakkad. Palakkad – 678 557. PAN : AAAAT9763E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 19.05.2025. O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 14.11.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1070364157(1) and relates to the assessment year 2019-2020.
The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative society filed its return of income on 25th September, 2019. The return of income filed by the assessee was declared as defective u/s.139 (9) of the Act. In response to this notice the Counsel removed the defect by
Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT (A) and pointed out that the assessee is entitled for deduction of sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the CPC has erred in disallowing this deduction without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Another argument of the assessee was that disallowance of deduction u/s.80P is a debatable issue and hence could not have been adjudicated by the CPC while processing the return of income. The ld.CIT (A) simply affirmed the order of the CPC without dealing with the contentions of the assessee.
Today, when the matter was called upon for hearing, nobody appeared from the side of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, we are deciding this appeal on the basis of the material placed before us.
The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the learned DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. Perusal of the order of the CIT(A) would show that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic order as evident from the findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A), reproduced hereunder:-
“In this case the main ground of appeal relates with disallowance made by the CPC (which is claimed as deduction u/s.80P by the assessee). Since all the grounds pertain to the . The Kozhippara SC.B Ltd. same issue, they are taken together for adjudication. On asking the assessee to justify its claim of deduction u/s.80P, the assessee submitted only various case laws with furnishing any proof and details to justify the allowability of deduction u/s.80P. Hence, CPC has rightly disallowed the deduction u/s.80P. Accordingly, these grounds appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”
Perusal of these above findings would show that the ld.CIT (A) has not at all dealt with the issue involved and the contentions of the assessee raised before him. It is settled position of law that the CIT (A) is duty bound to decide the appeal in a judicious manner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby restore this matter to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. Reported in (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC). Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 20th May, 2025. Devadas G*