M/S. KALIA S C BANK LIMITED,BELTHANGADY TALUK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PUTTUR

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld CIT(A) in confirming the order of AO in rejecting the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act.

I heard the parties and perused the record. I noticed that the AO was constrained to pass order to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act, since the assessee did not furnish any detail that were called for by the AO. Accordingly the AO rejected the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act. Before the ld CIT(A) also the assessee did not appear and hence the ld CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO.

The ld AR submitted that the assessee could not appear before the tax authorities for reasons beyond control of the assessee. However, I find that the above said explanation is vague and not supported by any material. However, at the same time in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the tax authorities. Since the assessee was delinquent, I impose a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) upon the assessee, which shall paid to the credit of Income-tax Department as ‘other fees’ within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal by the assessee. Subject to the payment of above cost, I set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) and restore all the issue to the file of ld CIT(A) for examining it afresh. I also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.