M/S GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA, Ms. Laxmi Sharma, CA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.94/RPR/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti ITO- 1(3), Maryadit, Dhamtari (CG). Vill.- Borsi, Magarload, Vs. Distt- Dhamtari (CG).

PAN : AAAAG9736C (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.95/RPR/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti ITO, Maryadit, Dhamtari (CG). Vill.- Siwnikala, Vs. Distt- Dhamtari (CG).

PAN : AAAAG9879L (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.96/RPR/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti ITO, Maryadit, Dhamtari (CG). Vill.- Kokadi, Teh.- Kurud, Vs. Distt- Dhamtari (CG).

PAN : AAAAG9963F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Ms. Laxmi Sharma, CA Department by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR : 17-08-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 17-08-2018 O R D E R PER BENCH : The above three appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders 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. 2. 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.6,73,972/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Borsi, Rs.5,23,217/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Siwnikala, and Rs.4,72,015/- in the case of Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kokadi.

In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the respective assessees for which the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the appellate order in ITA

No.95 & 96/RPR/2016 submitted that the ld. CIT(A) mentions that the assessee had filed submission dated 04.02.2016 and none appeared on the various dates when the appeals were fixed. 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 by issue of notice. The AR of the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and on the basis of submission made by the assessee the appeals were decided by the ld. CIT(A). 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. 7. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. 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 submissions filed by the assessee were not considered by the ld. CIT(A)

properly. 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.

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 17th August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17-08-2018. 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

M/S GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)