SWATANTRAVIR SAVARKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

Next come the assessee’s identical substantive ground(s) in it’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 reading as under :

“On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and having regards to the background of the appellant, the appellant humbly prays to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment order passed by A.O. u/s, 144 pleased by quashed as the same is without jurisdiction because the notice u/s.148 is issued by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik is without jurisdiction and also the assessment order is passed by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik is without jurisdiction as the same is passed without there being any order passed u/s.127 of the Act. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the AO without having Document Identification Number (DIN) or without following the procedure given in Circular issued by CBPI No.19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 may please be cancelled.

The assessee’s first and foremost grievance in both these appeals challenges the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction herein framing the impugned twin assessment(s). Hon’ble Delhi high court’s landmark decision in Abhishek Jain vs. ITO & Anr. [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Del.) has settled the law that such a challenge to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction has to be raised within the specified time limits u/sec.124(3)(a) and (b); as the case may be. The assessee has admittedly not complied with the foregoing statutory

The assessee’s identical third substantive ground(s) raised “document identification no.” [“DIN”]’s absence whilst framing the impugned twin assessment(s). A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s assessment(s) herein have been duly found as having proper DIN nos. There is no rebuttal to this clinching effect forthcoming in the instant twin case files. Rejected accordingly.

The assessee’s next substantive ground(s) reads that both the learned lower authorities have assessed it as a “Company” and not a “Co-operative Society”. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer’s former assessment for assessment year 2012-13 has treated it as a “cooperative society” whereas his latter order has shown it’s status as a “company”. The same is found to be a clerical/rectifiable mistake only than indicating the assessee to have suffered from any prejudice therefrom. The learned Assessing Officer has rather considered it’s sec.80P deduction claim on merits which is not available to “company” in foregoing terms. This identical third substantive ground(s) is declined therefore.

Lastly comes the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance of issue of merits claiming sec.80P deduction. It transpires from perusal of both the impugned assessments that it had not claimed the same by way of filing a return so as to comply with sec.80A(5) of the Act, held to be mandatory in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in EBR Enterprises vs.

The assessee’s latter appeal ITA.No.882/PUN./2023 also follows the suit since raising identical issue(s).

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.881 & 882/PUN. /2023 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.