Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,77,113/- under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from nationalized banks, which was disallowed by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance and lack of documentary evidence. The tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish relevant documents and substantiate its claim under Section 80P. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from banks, and whether sufficient opportunity was provided to present evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 80P, Section 80P(2)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Siliguri (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
(B P Ergo Employee Credit Co-op. Society Maryadit) 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeal. As the reasons stated by the Assessee in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by duly sworn affidavit dated 23/04/2025 are plausible, bonafide and unintentional, therefore, the delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in this case, vide assessment order dated 18/10/2019 u/sec. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) has made the addition of Rs.2,77,113/- being ‘disallowance of deduction’ claimed u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act by the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration on account of interest income received from nationalized banks i.e. Central Bank, ICICI Bank and Sahara India fixed deposits.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording three opportunities, eventually made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the addition made by the AO. The Ld. Commissioner in the order specifically observed that Assessee in support of its claim, could not furnish any documentary evidences of its registration or its
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld. Commissioner by producing the relevant submissions/documents, so that Ld. Commissioner would be in a position to determine the issue under consideration in its right perspective and proper manner. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions/documents before the Ld. Commissioner. It is hereby clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.