No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2017-18 T V Malai District Consumers Co- Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of operative Wholesale Stores Limited, Income Tax, Chengam Road, Emalingam Backside, Circle 1, Tiruvannamalai 606 603. Vellore. [PAN: AABAT6616P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the 2 claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act by determining the income of the assessee at ₹.1,90,43,852/- after allowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and under section 80P(2)(c) of the Act of ₹.29,38,965/- against the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act of ₹.2,19,82,817/-.
On perusal of the appellate order, we note that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a fresh claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) sought for remand report from the Assessing Officer against the fresh claim of the assessee. After considering the remand report as well as reply of the assessee against the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee towards deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(e) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not produce any evidence of having godown/warehouse to let out and has not furnished any contract/ agreement with the State Government to prove the claim.
The ld. AR, Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that admittedly, the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the activity of wholesale supplies to PDS outlets in Tiruvannamalai District and also runs PDS outlets, provision stores, and medical stores. By referring to the notification in English translation issued by the Additional