SWA ASHOKRAO BANKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPLGAON (B) vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NASHIK, GADKARI CHOWK, NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which was disallowed. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154, which was also not decided on merits by the lower appellate authority (NFAC).
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal on merits, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057953010(1), dated 15.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal is that both the learned lower authorities have wrongly disallowed its deduction claimed u/sec.80P(2)(e) of the Act of Rs.44,50,090/-; and the rectification order passed by the DDIT- CPC, Bengaluru dated 02.03.2023 u/sec.154 of the Act is an apparent mistake on record and in appeal, the NFAC had also not 2 ITA.No.77/PUN./2024 considered the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Shri Nayak, could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned 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 discussion thereof. Faced with this 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.03.2024.
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026