MALLIPPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. THE ITO WARD 1, THODUPUZHA

Learned counsel submits at the outset that the CIT(A) / NFAC; in its impugned ex parte order, has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing its 80P deduction claim of Rs.7,03,383 despite the fact that it is eligible for the very relief. He invites our attention to page 2 para 2 of the impugned appellate discussion that the assessee . Malippara SCB Ltd. had not put any appearance (physically) therein. Mr.Jojo attributes reasons thereof to the communication gap(s) at various levels. The Revenue fails to dispute the clinching fact that neither there is any point(s) of determination framed nor we find any detailed discussion thereupon as per the rigor of section 250(6) of the Act in the CIT(A)’s order. This is indeed coupled with the fact which are prima facie find from the case file that the possibility of communication gap, in the new regime involving faceless appeal proceedings or even in any regular physical appeal; in such an instance, could not be altogether ruled out. We deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that larger interest of justice would be met in case the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.