DPD 82 KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,KRISHNAGIRI vs. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1517/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed by both lower authorities due to the assessee's non-participation. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte assessment orders. The additions included cash deposits during demonetization, disallowed deductions, and rental income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's non-participation before the lower authorities was deliberate, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted for denovo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 01.05.2024Pronounced: 08.05.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 25.10.2023.

:-2-: ITA. No: 1517/Chny/2023 2. The brief facts are that, the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of milk processing in the brand name of ‘Aavin’. The assessee has filed its return of income u/s. 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.10.2017. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, there was no response on the part of the assessee promptly so that to pass best judgment assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act by making the following additions: (i) cash deposits made to the bank account during the period of demonetization as unexplained income of Rs.6,53,24,424/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) the amount claimed as “any other amount allowable as deduction” in Schedule BP of the return of income to the tune of Rs.2,04,77,681/- and added to the business income. (iii) the rental income shown at Rs.5,96,791/- in Form 26AS, after allowing deduction of 30% u/s. 24(a) of the Act of Rs.1,79,037/- and arrived at a net income from house property at Rs.4,17,754/- and concluded the assessment.

:-3-: ITA. No: 1517/Chny/2023 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was decided on the same reasons that despite of being given many opportunities, assessee did not participate. So, he was pleased to dismiss it. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee is a cooperative society and the nature and business is milk processing and catering to the public/consumers through their appointed agents across the district on daily basis. Describing the modus operandi of the society he submitted that sale proceeds of the milk and milk products are collected on daily basis by the appointed agents in the form of cash and deposited in their bank accounts i.e, of the society. Therefore, according to ld. AR, collection of cash and depositing the same in the bank account of the society is a regular business activity, which is not an activity carried out only during demonetization period. Hence, according to him, the additions made u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, is erroneous and hence the same needs to be deleted. In the alternate, ld. AR pleads that since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the :-4-: ITA. No: 1517/Chny/2023 Assessing Officer, he requested to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

5.

Per contra, the ld. DR, supporting the action of ld. CIT(A) contended that assessee has been given enough opportunities and one more innings should not be given to assessee.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that assessee is cooperative society and due to non-participation before the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) both authorities have passed orders. The plea of the assessee was that the non- appearance/participation was not deliberate and the ld. AR undertakes to appear before the authorities, provided an opportunity is given. Since, exparte orders have been passed by both authorities we deem it fit to restore the assessment back to the file of the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct the Assessing Officer to denovo frame assessment in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

:-5-: ITA. No: 1517/Chny/2023 Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →