Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 23/12/2024 of learned Addl. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. Addl. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: -
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.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.18,87,730 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating that appellant is a sahakari samiti and is maintaining proper books of accounts and deduction claimed under section 80P is allowable to appellant which was denied by the AO on the ground that appellant have not supplied the documents .
3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.18,87,730 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that appellant is a sahakari samiti and maintaining all the books of accounts and accounts are being audited under the cooperative society Act and also under the income tax Act and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) 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 and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law.
Page 2 of 4 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.”
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 “large deduction under Chapter VIA from the total income”. The AO noted that the society filed its return of income belatedly. Therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) were also separately initiated. The Assessing Officer in the absence of any supporting evidence disallowed the claimed u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.18,88,730/-. Thus, he assessed income at Rs.18,88,730/-. 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.
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. The lower authority failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel urged that the assessee society is located in remote area and is not conversant about the technology. 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 Page 3 of 4 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.
We have heard rival contention and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a society stated to be located at remote area. The office bearers are not fully conversant with the provisions of the Act. Hence, due to bona fide reasons the assessee society failed to attend proceedings before the authorities below. It is seen that through ground no. 5, it was urged by the assessee that inadvertently it added proceeds of rice paddy and wheat Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on this aspect of the matter. Moreover, it requires verification at the end of AO. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts and the material placed before us, we are of the considered view that to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, assessee should be given proper opportunity to represent his case effectively. We, therefore, hereby set aside the impugned orders and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to make assessment afresh, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/06/2025.