KOTLUK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SEVA SOCIETY LTD,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RATNAGIRI WARD , RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 265/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits and was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC confirming additions made by the AO. The additions related to cash deposits during demonetization and estimated business income, ignoring the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the substantive grounds on merits and whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.03.2024Pronounced: 22.03.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060035979(1), dated 23.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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

1.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.19,77,500/- representing the total of cash deposits during 2 ITA.No.265/PUN./2024 demonetization period, though the source of the cash deposit being out of identified sources who are members of the society.

1.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the business income of the appellant estimated by the AO of @10% of total credits in the bank of the appellant ignoring the claim of the appellant that it being a co- operative credit society it’s business income is eligible for deduction u/s.80P. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. Learned counsel submitted that both the learned lower authorities have passed ex-parte order(s) u/sec.144 of the Act. And that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to put-forth it’s grievance and prayed that one more opportunity be provided in the interest of substantial justice.

4. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that despite notice(s) issued, the assessee did not respond and therefore, the impugned order(s) were passed.

5.

We have heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. It emerges at the outset that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s contentions

3 ITA.No.265/PUN./2024 vide ex-parte order under challenge. Shri Mehta could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.03.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →