Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative credit society, filed its ITR for AY 2017-18 claiming a deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer, during scrutiny, made an addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and denied the Section 80P deduction, assessing a total income of Rs. 42,88,149/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, dismissing the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, but noted that the assessee's AR claimed a good case on merits and sought an opportunity to present evidence. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and denial of deduction u/s 80P, and if the appeal should have been dismissed due to non-compliance without providing further opportunity.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 68, 80P, 143(2), 142(1), Rule 34(5) of ITAT Rules 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the Shree Lokakalyan Souharda Credit Sahakari Niyamit. ex parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining(i) the addition u/se 68 of the Act and (ii) denial of claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assesse has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 24.10.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/sec 80P of the Act of Rs.29,23,649/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the details and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and find that there are cash deposits during the F.Y.2016-17 and the assessee was asked to explain the sources of deposits and also a show cause notice was issued, but there was partial compliance. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits of Rs.13,64,500/- and denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act and finally assessed the total income of Rs.42,88,149/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 10.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the Shree Lokakalyan Souharda Credit Sahakari Niyamit. AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings. Further the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/sec 68 of the Act and denial of claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act Shree Lokakalyan Souharda Credit Sahakari Niyamit. made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance which cannot be overruled. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Therefore, considering the facts, submissions and principles of natural justice, shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal
of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.