Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
PER BENCH : The above three appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed
against the separate orders dated 15.12.2015 of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Raipur (CG)
relating to assessment year 2011-12. Since identical grounds have been raised
by the respective assessees in their appeals challenging the order of the ld.
CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals field by them, therefore, these were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that all the above assessees are cooperative
societies and are engaged in the business of banking activities for their
respective members only along with some other business activities like :-
(a) Trading of fertilizers, pesticides & seed. (b) Public distribution system in includes sugar, rice, wheat and kerosene. (c) Paddy procurement business as commission agent.
All the above assessees filed their respective returns of income declaring
Nil income after claiming deduction u/s 80-P of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the
assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s
80-P and after making certain disallowances determined the total income of
Rs.7,77,020/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rampur,
3 ITA Nos.46 to 48/RPR/2016
Rs.7,74,760/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Demar and
Rs.2,92,548/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Mohadi.
In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the respective
assessees for which the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the appellate order submitted
that the ld. CIT(A) mentions that the assessee had filed submission dated
26.11.2015. However, before the second submission dated 02.02.2016 was
filed, the appeals were already decided by him on 15.12.2015. He submitted
that the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has not given sufficient opportunity of
being heard to the respective assessees. The ld. counsel for the assessee also
filed certain additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 which contain a compilation of percentage of paddy
procured from members and non-members. He submitted that in the interest of
justice the additional evidences be admitted and the matter may be restored
either to the file of the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A) as the Bench deems
it proper.
The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the submission as
advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee. He submitted that the appeals
were fixed vide notice dated 06.10.2015 and 26.11.2015. The AR of the
assessee did appear before the ld. CIT(A) on 26.11.2015 and on the basis of
4 ITA Nos.46 to 48/RPR/2016
submission made by the assessee the cases were decided vide order dated
15.12.2015. Since the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit, therefore,
grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed and the orders of the ld.
CIT(A) be upheld.
We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and
perused the material available on record. We find from the submission of the
ld. counsel for the assessee that he had filed another submission dated
02.02.2016 and by that time the appeals were already decided vide order dated
15.12.2015. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in the
interest of justice the additional evidences, which go to the root of the matter,
should be admitted. Further, it is also his submission that the submission dated
02.02.2016 was not considered by the ld. CIT(A) since by that time the order
was already passed. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the
interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the ld.
CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the respective
assessees to substantiate their cases. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue as
per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We
hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the respective assessees are
allowed for statistical purposes.
5 ITA Nos.46 to 48/RPR/2016
In the result, the above appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on this 16th August, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16-08-2018. Sujeet Copy of order to: - 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT 4) The CIT(A) 5) The DR, I.T.A.T., Raipur. By Order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Raipur