INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, SANGLI., AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SANGLI vs. SHRI. CHANDRAPRABHANATH DIGAMBAR V.K.S. SOCIETY LTD, ASHTA, ASHTA, TAL WALWA, DIST SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 June 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)9 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It noted that the NFAC had admitted additional evidence and received a remand report from the AO, which did not find any lacuna in the assessee's explanation for the investment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the NFAC's order which deleted additions made by the AO. The additions pertained to disallowance of deduction under Section 80P and unexplained investment. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P and the addition for unexplained investment, considering the AO's remand report and admitted additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 69B,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : [HYBRID HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI,

Hearing: 28.05.2024Pronounced: 04.06.2024

short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1058874451(1), dated 19.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest.

It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease mid in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting addition of Rs.28,56,449/- on account of disallowance of deduction

under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in deleting addition of Rs.8,13,03,229/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in accepting additional

evidence and submission without providing sufficient time to the AO for submitting the remand report which deny the Assessing Officer any opportunity to cross examine the credit worthiness, genuineness of transactions of the investments made by the assessee and also taken

Loans/advances by issuing notices u/s. 133(6)/131.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in allowing claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee Pat Sanstha failed to produce any evidence to establish that it had expended any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn interest income from co operative bank,

commercial banks and other financial institutions.

3 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify

any of the above or all grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal which may please be granted.”

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing pleadings and find no merit therein.

Coming to it’s former substantive ground seeking to reverse the NFAC’s action granting sec.80P deduction to the assessee, it is noted that the impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under :

4 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024

5 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024

4.

Suffice to say, it has come on record that the NFAC had duly admitted the assessee’s additional evidence(s) in respect of it’s sec.80P deduction claim after complying with the necessary requirements under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962.

The learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer had further submitted his remand report before the NFAC verifying all the necessary aspects regarding the said deduction claim raised at assessee’s behest. Coupled with this, the learned NFAC’s detailed discussion has also taken note of all the relevant judicial precedents so far as assessee’s interest income(s) realized from cooperative institution(s) as well as members, involving varying sums is concerned. Rejected accordingly.

5.

The factual position is hardly any different regarding the latter issue of sec.69B addition of Rs.8,13,03,229/- wherein the NFAC’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under :

6 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024 7 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024 8 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024

6.

We noticed herein as well that the Assessing Officer had duly submitted his remand report before the NFAC not finding any lacuna in assessee’s explanation so far as source of the impugned investment(s) is concerned. Learned CIT-DR could also not dispute from Revenue’s pleadings that the Assessing Officer’s above stated remand report in any case had failed to verify all the relevant facts submitted by the assessee during the relevant proceedings. Faced with this situation, we

9 ITA.No.280/PUN./2024 conclude that the NFAC’s foregoing lower appellate findings deciding both these issues in assessee’s favour hardly call for any interference in the instant second appellate proceedings.

The same stands confirmed. Ordered accordingly.

7.

This Revenue’s appeal I.T.A.No.280/PUN./2024 is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.06.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →