RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD.,MALKAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted the assessee one opportunity to substantiate their case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer made additions due to the assessee's failure to furnish details. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case is sustainable. Whether the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P and addition on unsecured loans are justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 23/01/2025
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 20/08/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2022–23.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by CIT (A) may please be set aside as the same is passed ex parte and without discussing the merits of the case.
2. On the basis of the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs. 94,96,805/- made by AO in respect of interest received on 2 Radhakrishna Nagar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. investment made with co-operative banks when the said investments were made with commercial expediency.
3. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition in respect of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,03,90,813/-.
4. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. While going through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer was forced to passed ex– parte order by making various additions. While making additions, it is the observations of the Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to furnish details or documentary evidences in response to the statutory notices issued by him. We also find that the assessee also failed to appear before the learned CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices which remained non–complied by the assessee and hence the learned CIT(A) also passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without going onto the merits of the issues raised by the assessee. Be that as it may. We are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity is hereby granted to the assessee to substantiate the case before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be prompt in adhering to the statutory notices to 3 Radhakrishna Nagar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. be issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking any adjournment, except in exceptional case.
Given the assessee’s lackadaisical approach in non-compliance and procedural delays, we deem it fit and appropriate to impose a cost on the assessee for an amount of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the said appeal payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority and produce evidence of payment before the Assessing Officer. This cost underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timely compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings.
Subject to the condition as stated in Para–4 above, in the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/01/2025
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026