PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing exparte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the response as society was not aware of fixation of case and society was at remote area and are not conversant with income tax and thus appellant was not able to file response.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the Government agency and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed by the AO in the scrutiny assessment and also by CPC and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is a society and filed its return of income at Nil. Its case was taken up for limited scrutiny on the basis that “Deduction under Chapter VIA”. The AO noted that the society filed its return of income belatedly. Therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was separately initiated. The Assessing Officer in the absence of the supporting evidence disallowed the claim made u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.20,03,303/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs.20,03,303/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte to the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities have not given adequate opportunity to the assessee and the assessment order as well as the First Appellate Order was passed exparte to the assessee. Ld. Counsel urged that the assessee society is located Page 3 of 4 in remote area and is not conversant about the technology and various legal compliances. Thus, for the bonafide reasons the assessee could not attend proceedings before the authorities below. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and may be restored to the assessing authority for making assessment order afresh.

4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions of the assessee and supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that the reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee society and in the absence of relevant material the authorities below is justified in making the ex-parte assessment and sustaining the same. He further contended that the assessee ought to have been vigilant about his case. The onus is on the assessee to prove that it is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. In this case, the assessee failed to discharge its onus.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025.