THE KANGOD GROUP MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SIRSI vs. ITO, SIRSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1173/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 July 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits and by dismissing it for lack of written submissions, ignoring oral arguments. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed solely for not filing written submissions, despite oral arguments being presented. The CIT(Appeals) did not consider the merits of the case or the oral submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering oral arguments and the merits of the case, and whether the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, Jt. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29.06.2016Pronounced: 04.07.2016

Date of hearing : 29.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2016 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Hubli for the assessment year 2010-11 inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the disallowance of Rs. 24,98,732/- claimed by the Appellant U/S 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act eventhough the Appellant eligible for the deduction. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,76,507/- claimed by the Appellant U/S 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act eventhough the deduction is rightly claimed.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the order of the Income Tax officer, Ward-I, Sirsi holding Rs. 3,39,874/- as income from Kirana/Trading Section not appreciating the fact that the same is pertaining to the business of Marketing of Agricultural Produce of its Members and it is deductible U/S 80 P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the order of the ITO Ward - I Sirsi and in not appreciating the fact that the learned AO has misinterpreted the provisions of section 80P (2) (a) (i), 80P(4) and 2(24) (viia) of the IT Act. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice and in summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and in ignoring the merits of the case. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of appeal hearing.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only for the simple reason that he has not filed written submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that he has advanced oral arguments before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) did not take cognizance of the same and has dismissed the appeal for the simple reason that written submissions were not filed despite opportunities. The ld. counsel further contended that there is no requirement of law that everytime the assessee has to file written submissions. If the oral arguments are advanced, the authority is required to take cognizance of the same and adjudicate the appeal on merits. In light of these facts, the order of the CIT(Appeals) deserves to be set aside.

3.

The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(Appeals).

4.

Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities, I find that undisputedly the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only for the reason that the assessee has not filed written submissions, despite various opportunities offered to him. The CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the oral arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Since the CIT(Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits, I set aside his order and restore the matter to his file to adjudicate the appeal on merits, even if the assessee advances oral arguments.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →