PARASAGAD TALUKA PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAKARA PARASPARA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,SOUNDATTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI
Facts
The assessee, a Co-operative Credit Society, filed its return claiming a deduction under section 80P(2) which was denied by the AO for failure to provide proof of registration, leading to an assessment under section 143(3) and a 200% penalty under section 270A. Unsuccessful appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) led to the current appeals before the tribunal, which were filed with a condoned delay of 89 days.
Held
The Tribunal found sufficient reasons for the appellant's inability to prosecute its appeals before the Ld. NFAC, noting that the same reasons prevented timely filing of the current appeals. Consequently, it set aside the ex-parte impugned orders and remitted both cases back to the Ld. NFAC for a de-novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, a Co-operative Credit Society, was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2) and whether the penalty under section 270A was correctly imposed, warranting a remand for de-novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 253(3), 80P(2), 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 270A, 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 014 & 015/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Parasagad Taluka Prathamik Shikshakara Paraspara Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Saundatti, Belagavi. PAN:AAAAP1358B . . . . . . . Appellant
V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent
Appearances Assessee by : Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 20/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/03/2025
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This twin appeals are instituted by the assessee against respective orders passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] relating to assessment year 2020-21.
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
ITA No.014 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21 Since the facts & issue arising out of the both these appeals 2. are interrelated, upon rival party’s request and for the sake of brevity these appeals taken up together for hearing for being disposed-off by a consolidated order.
These appeals are time barred by 89 days. From the reasons 3. stated in the affidavit we are of the considered view that, the assessee for a sufficient reasons was prevented from filing these twin appeals within the prescribed limit terms of section 253(3) of the Act. Consequently, applying the test laid in ‘CIT Vs KSP Shanmugavel Nadai Ors’ [1985, 153 ITR 596 (Mad)] we condone the aforestated delay and admit the same for adjudication on merit
ITA No. 014/PAN/2025 The long and short of the quantum appeal is that; the 4. assessee is a Co-Operative Credit Society registered u/s 10 of the Bombay Act State, 1925. For the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income ['ITR' hereafter] on 29/12/2020 declaring total income of ₹NIL/- after claiming ₹82,11,331/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. The said return in first placed
ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
ITA No.014 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and later selected for scrutiny vide notice dt. 29/06/2021 u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to adduce the copy of registration as a ‘Co- Operative’ Society, under the provisions of Karnataka State Co- operative Societies Act 1959, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ineligible for 80P(2) deduction and thus denied the claim for deduction and assessed the total income accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act.
ITA No. 015/PAN/2025 5. Pursuant to aforestated assessment a consequential penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated and in the event of assessee’s effective failure to refute the negative findings/conclusion, the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by imposing a penalty equal to 200% of tax sought to be evaded under s/s (9) of section 270A of the Act.
Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully aforestated orders separately u/s 246A of the Act. Thus, hurt by the orders of tax authorities below, the assessee society came in present appeals.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
ITA No.014 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21
We have heard the rival party’s submission on the limited
issue of fitness of these cases for their remand to the file of Ld.
NFAC and perused the material placed on records. We note that,
the reasons which prevented the appellant from filing these
appeals within the prescribed time limit had also prevented the
appellant from prosecuting the appeals before the Ld. NFAC.
Since the sufficiency of such reasons is already established, we
therefore deem it fit to accord one more opportunity to the
appellant to represent these cases on merits before the Ld. NFAC
which can only be possible on their remand. In the event, without
offering our comments on merits, we set-aside both the ex-parte
impugned orders and remit them to Ld. NFAC for de-novo
adjudication in accordance with law.
In result, these appeals are ALLOWED for statistical purposes. 8. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court the date mentioned hereinbefore.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji, 21th March, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The AO Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4
