Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
Madhemangalam Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-op. Society, Vs. Ward-1, 2/147, Madhemangalam, Dharmapuri. Nallampalli, Dharmapuri – 636 804. [PAN: AABAM 5052E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 29.12.2019. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: :- 2 -:
“1. The order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre in dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case.
2. The NFAC was not justified in confirming the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, since assessee had requested for adjournment for the hearing notice on 21.1.21 and the next notice dated 14.9.22 went unnoticed and that the remand report copy was not put across to the assessee and hence the order passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The NFAC erred in confirming the denial of the claim of deduction of Rs.24,77,890 under section 8OP(2) of the Act.
The NFAC was not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2) made by the assessee in the return of income filed on 21.9.2019 on the ground it was non-est return, though the claim for deduction is bonafide and valid.
5. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessee satisfies all the requisites and made a valid claim under sec.80P(2) and denial of the same is wholly unjustified.
6. The NFAC Ought to have duly considered the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd., wherein the Court held that deduction u/s.80P cannot be denied only because the return was belated and thus allowed the claim of assessee.
7. The NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.5,53,043 under sec.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The NFAC failed to appreciate that the entire amount of cash deposited in the bank account pertained to the collection of loan repayments from its members and thus deleted the addition.
The NFAC further failed to appreciate that the collection of loan repayments is reflected in the cash book for the period, which was placed on record before the lower authorities and hence there was no basis to confirm a portion of the amount deposited in the bank account as unexplained investment of assesse.
The NFAC, in any view of the matter, ought to have afforded adequate opportunity to the assessee and granted the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2) and also deleted the addition in entirety and thus allowed the appeal of assessee.” :- 3 -:
The assessee is the Co-operative society and has not filed its return of income. The A.O issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to file the return of income on or before 03.03.2018, but the assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, on 21.09.2019 the assessee filed its return of income at Nil claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs.27,77,890/-. The A.O treated the return of income as non-est and passed assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on 29.12.2019 disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The assessee has also made addition on unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 16,29,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act.
3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of claim u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the assessee return was treated as non-est and as per Section 80A(5) for making claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act with no surviving return there was no valid claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition u/s. 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 5,53,043/- out of total addition of Rs.16,29,000/- made by A.O as cash balance of Rs.10,75,957/- as on 08.11.2016 was available with the assessee as was brought out by the A.O in the remand stage.
However, it is evidenced that the assessment order has passed u/s. :- 4 -:
144 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order only on the basis of statement of facts and ground of appeal submitted in Form-35.
4. The Ld. A.R has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without affording opportunity to the assessee as it has requested for adjournment for hearing and the copy of remand report was not put across to it. The Ld. AR further submitted the extract cash book showing that closing balance as on 08.11.2016 was Rs. 16,40,337/- and therefore, no addition 69A of the Act was called for.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without putting across the remand report obtained from A.O to it. The Ld. A.R has contended that proper opportunity was not given. We agree with the submission of the assessee that proper opportunity of hearing was not given. We are of the opinion that keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing. We therefore remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. The assessee :- 5 -: shall appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19th July, 2024. (जगदीश) (महावीर िसंह) (Jagadish) (Mahavir Singh) लेखा सद"य लेखा उपा" / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य /Accountant Member सद"य चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: July, 2024. EDN/-