MAHARAHSTRA RAJYA SAHAKARI DUDH MAHASANGH MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17 (2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5979/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 December 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A) to be bonafide. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return of income declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer denied deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on miscellaneous income. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to the illness of its General Manager.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

For Appellant: Shri. Vishwas Mehendale,AR
For Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr.AR, Shri. Vishwas Mehendale,AR
Hearing: 04/12/2019Pronounced: 04/12/2019

Revenue by Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr.AR (DR) Assessee by Shri. Vishwas Mehendale,AR Date of Hearing 04/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/12/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M):

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–28, Mumbai, dated 19/07/2018 and it pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) & Income Tax Officer erred in restricting the deduction on interest and dividend received from Co-operative society u/s 80(P) (d) of Income Tax Act only to the extent of “Income from Profit and gains from business or profession” to Rs.3,78,41,810/-

2. The appellant prays to add, amend, alter, modify, and delete or withdraw the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesee is a cooperative society established to implement the operation flood programme in the state of Maharashtra. The main objective of MRSDMM is procuring milk from the member milk unions at remunerative rates and distributes the same to the consumers at reasonable rates. The assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 30/09/2013 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 28/03/2016, determining the total income at Rs. 3,78,41,810/- , by denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) of the I.T.Act, 1961, in respect of miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 3,78,41,830/-. The assessee carried the matter appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A), despite various notices issued, fixing the case for hearing. The Ld.CIT(A) for the detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order dated 19/07/2018 dismissed appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR for the assesee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assesee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) for hearing. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to explain the case. The Ld. AR further submitted that the reasons for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A) are not intentional, because the General Manager, who suppose to attend the hearing was not attending the office due to sudden illness during the period. Due to sudden illness of General Manage, the assessee could not attend the hearing as on the date fixed for hearing the case. Therefore, the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit issue may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain its case.

5.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly accepted that the issue may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee ex- parte for non appearance on the date fixed for hearing. The assessee has explained the reasons for non attendance before the Ld.CIT(A), as per which the General Manager, who supposed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) was fell ill during the period, because of which the assessee could not appoint counsels from their panel of experts for making representation before the authorities. We find that the reasons given by the assessee for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A) seems to be bonafide and hence, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case. Hence, we set aside the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/12/2019

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →