Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The appeal is assailed against the order National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘NFAC’] dt. 09/02/2024 passed u/s 250 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’], which leapt out of best judgement order passed u/s 144 of the Act by National Faceless e-Asstt Centre [for short ‘AO’] dt. 07/12/2021 for assessment year [for short ‘AY’] 2020-21.
ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
Skoda Auto Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit Vs ITO AY: 2020-21 2. Tersely stated facts borne out of record are; the assessee is a credit co-operative society and engaged in providing credit facilities to its member, has for AY 2020-21 filed its Income Tax Return [for short ‘ITR’] on 19/12/2020 declaring ‘NIL’ taxable income after claiming a deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for sum of ₹67,11,946/-. The case of the assessee vide notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was subjected to limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the deduction claimed u/c VI-A of the Act. In the event of non-compliance with notices issued u/s 143(2) and subsequently u/s 142(1), the assessee was put to a show cause notice u/s 144 [for short ‘SCN’] dt. 26/08/2022 and was asked to explain claim made in the return of income with cogent evidence. In the absence of representation & response to SCN, for time-barring reasons the assessment was finalised u/s 144 of the Act to the best of judgment on the basis of material available on record whereby entire deduction claimed u/s VI-A of the Act was denied vide assessment order dt. 19/09/2022.
Aggrieved assessee assailed the aforestated denial of deduction in an appeal, which Ld. NFAC dismissed for non- prosecution. Aggrieved thereby the assessee came in present ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
Without touching merits & grounds of appeal, we have heard the rival contentions on limited issue of ex-parte assessment & ex-parte dismissal of appeal by Ld. NFAC; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT, Rules’] perused the material placed on records.
5. We note that, the appellant assessee neither before the Ld. AO nor before Ld. NFAC could lay any material in support of its claim made in the return of income filed by it. In the absence of material substantiating the claim made in the return, the Ld. AO denied the deduction & framed the assessment to the best of his judgement. Since the appellant was indifferent in first appeal, the former denial was upheld by the Ld. NFAC for non-prosecution.
The reasons behind non-compliance occurred during the course assessment proceedings and non-prosecution of first appeal filed of before Ld. NFAC are explained by the Ld. AR, which prima-face appears us to be ‘sufficient & undeliberate’ ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
Skoda Auto Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit Vs ITO AY: 2020-21 which precluded the appellant from making effective representation before both the tax authorities below, which in turn resulted into culmination of ex-parte proceedings at two stages.
Since the rival parties rights & liabilities did not pass through the test of merits, in the larger interest of justice we deem it fit to restored matter back to the Ld. AO at the stage of valid service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act with a direction for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law and to pass the order within the time limit allowed. In view thereof, the impugned NFAC order is set-aside and the file is restored back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with aforestated directions.
The appeal in result is partly allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on the day of conclusive hearing.