UNNAT KRISHI SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,DEWAS vs. ACIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 519/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 February 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting the ex-parte nature of both lower orders and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to present details. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce relevant details and evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P for both business and interest income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision and dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution and lack of response from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities were justified in passing ex-parte orders and disallowing the deduction under Section 80P without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present evidence and substantiate its claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.02.2024Pronounced: 19.02.2024

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.10.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case passed an order on ex parte basis without giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case by assessing income on ITR of the invalid return which is construe as not filed return as such assessment made is bad in law. Page 1 of 4

SMC-Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Page 2 of 4 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case and assessed the total income at Rs. 45,01,576/- as against the returned income of Nil.

4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and made an addition of Rs. 45,01,576/- on account of section 80P under chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as is admissible deduction to a co- operative society. The addition therefore made is totally wrong and without considering the facts of the case.

5.That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing.”

2.

The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO while passing assessment order u/s 144 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on account of interest income received from deposit in Cooperative Bank. He has further submitted that this issue is covered by the decisions of this tribunal in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order ex-parte when there was no participation on behalf of the assessee. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering details of interest income earned on the deposits in the Cooperative Bank and in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any serious objection if matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering relevant details and evidence to be produced by the assessee.

SMC-Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Page 3 of 4 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO while passing ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act has denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income of the assessee including interest received from Cooperative Bank and also denied the claim of deduction u/ s 80P in respect of the business income declared by the assessee for want of necessary details and evidence. The CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the AO by denying the deduction u/s 80P of the Act in para 5.1 as under:

“5.1. I find that one of the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny was to verify the claim of deduction under chapter VIA. The appellant did not co-operate with assessment proceedings and the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P. During appellate proceedings also the appellant was afforded several opportunities to substantiate its claim of deduction. However, in the absence of any response, I compelled to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. "Vigilantibus non dormientibus iura subveniunt" Laws aid those who are vigilant and not those who sleep.”

5.

Thus, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non- prosecution as there was no response by the assessee to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). Since the entire income of the assessee including business income as well as interest income has been assessed to tax by the AO after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act for want of necessary details and the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case

SMC-Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Page 4 of 4 and in the interest of justice the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to produce the relevant details and evidences for verification and consideration of the AO. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 19.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →