Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against an order dated 17/01/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which remanded the issue of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, back to the Assessing Officer. This remand was for a fresh decision after verifying documentary evidence not submitted during the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Despite the Departmental Representative's contention that the Commissioner erred in law by setting aside the assessment order under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal noted that the assessee made no compliance during the assessment proceedings, leading the Assessing Officer to make an assessment under section 144.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner erred in remanding the issue of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the AO for fresh verification when the assessee failed to provide necessary documents during assessment.
Sections Cited
80P(2)(a)(i), 251(1)(a), 144, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 16/06/2025 Date of Order – 16/06/2025
O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M.
The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against impugned order dated 17/01/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [for short “learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.
In the instant case, vide impugned order dated 17/01/2025, the 2. Ld. Commissioner remanded the issue back qua the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") to the file of Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.") for decision afresh by verifying all the documentary evidences which were not submitted during the assessment
2 Bhandara Zilla Prathamik Shikhak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. ITA no.201/Nag./2025 proceedings, despite granting various opportunities by following the principles of natural justice. The learned Departmental Representative by this particular appeal and by raising the grounds of appeal has claimed that learned Commissioner has erred in law in setting aside the assessment order by taking revenge of the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act which are applicable to the assessment framed under section 144 of the Act but not the assessment framed under section 143(3) r/w section 143(3A) & section 143(3B) of the Act, as it appears from the caption of the assessment order.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though the contention raised by the ld.DR appears to be correct, however, from the body of the assessment order it appears that the assessee eventually made no compliance and, therefore, Assessing Officer was constrained to make the assessment under section 144 of the Act as duly acknowledged the said fact in para 13 of the assessment order, which is not denied by the learned D.R. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the Revenue Department stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/06/2025