Loading judgment…
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: 2020-21 The Kalkulam Co-operative Credit Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Nagercoil, 13B, 1st Floor, Society Ltd., No. 949, 1 Main Road, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari Dt. 629 175. Popular Building, Mead Street, Nagercoil 629 003. [PAN:AABTT9232C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Harshavardhan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 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 20.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21.
The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal, amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without there being proper opportunity to the assessee.
3. At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] determining the income of the assessee at ₹.42,82,025/- against NIL income by making disallowance of interest income of ₹.42,82,025/- claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act since there was no compliance against the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the appellate order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer since there was no representation from the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri Harshavardhan, Advocate submits that due to the circumstances beyond its control, the assessee could not represent its case either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute its case if the Tribunal afford an opportunity.
The ld. DR Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT reported objection that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) given many opportunities to the assessee, as the assessee failed to utilize the same.
As discussed above, we note from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer issued show-cause and since the assessee did not respond to the said notice, the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the interest income of ₹.42,82,025/- by holding that the interest earned out of the deposits from Kanyakumari District Central Cooperative Bank is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources” under section 56 of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it is established that there was no opportunity for the assessee in prosecuting its case, but, however, on the undertaken given by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the Assessing Officer without fail, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration afresh. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim and the Assessing Officer shall conduct the assessment proceedings de novo. Thus, grounds Nos. 1 to 9 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th July, 2024 at Chennai.