PATTUKOTTAI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ACIT, THANJAVUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 850/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 November 2019AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since crucial grounds were not adjudicated by the CIT(A), the common order was liable to be set aside. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on all grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2007-08, a ground regarding reopening of assessment was not adjudicated. For AY 2010-11, grounds related to deduction u/s.80P(2)(d), income from lorry hire, and release of reserves were not adjudicated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, including those related to reopening of assessment and specific deductions/income sources.

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, ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri AR.V Srinivasan,JCIT,D.R

आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

Bothe these appeals are filed by the assesseee against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-2, Tiruchirapallai in 413,414/2010-11, 424/2011-12, 184/2013-14 dated 11.12.2014 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010- 11. & 853/Chny/2015 :- 2 -:

2.

Shri S.Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Shri AR.V Srinivasan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld.AR that when adjudicating the appeal of assessee for the assessment year 2007-08, the ld.CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground No.2 in respect of reopening of assessment. Ld.AR submitted that he had no objection, if the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of ground No.2 of the appeal.

4.

In respect of the appeal for assessment year 2010-11, it was submitted by ld.AR that when adjudicating the appeal of assessee, ld.CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds Nos.2, 3 & 4 being the ground in respect of interest on investments in Co-operative societies by the assessee being entitled for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, ground in respect of income from lorry hire & the ground in respect of the release of Reserve, which had been raised before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR pleaded that he had no objection, if the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds No.2,3 & 4 of the appeal.

5.

In reply, the ld.DR fairly admitted that the said grounds had not been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have perused the grounds of appeals for assessment years 2007-08 & 2010-11 raised before the ld.CIT(A) and the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noticed that the ground in respect of reopening of assessment pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 has not been adjudicated & 853/Chny/2015 :- 3 -:

by the ld.CIT(A), and grounds Nos.2 3 & 4 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 had not been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A). Consequently, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the common order of the ld. CIT(A) relating to assessment years 2007-08 & 2010-11 is liable to be set aside, and the appeals under consideration are liable to be re-adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) on all the grounds, which have been raised by the assessee. This is because the finding in respect of the reopening of assessment could affect the assessment in its entirety for assessment year 2007-08, and in respect of assessment year 2010-11, the issues as raised before ld.CIT(A), which have not been adjudicated, would affect the computation of total income entirely.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 07th November, 2019, at Chennai.

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 →