Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
आदेश/O R D E R
PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.9.2017 passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Ahmedabad relating to the Asstt.Year 2016-17.
2. Though the assessee has raised eleven grounds of appeal, but solitary issue involved in this appeal is the ld.CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P of Rs.29,00,258/-.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed its return of income for the Asstt.Year 2016-17 on 3.9.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,44,11,553/-. The entire income of Rs.1,44,11,533/- was claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act. The above return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bangalore, and the CPC restricted the deduction under section 80P of the Act to Rs.1,15,01,998/- and thus determined assessable income at Rs.29,09,560/-. Accordingly, intimation under section 143(1) of the Act demanding tax at Rs.8,30,520/- was also issued to the assessee. Aggrieved against the intimation, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was noticed by the ld.CIT(A) that during the appellate proceedings, notices were issued on 19.7.2017, 04.8.2017 and 06.9.2017 but none of the occasions neither any representative attended nor any written submissions were filed on behalf of the assessee. However, on 27.9.2017 written submissions dated 26.9.2017 was received in dak. The written submissions filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) reads as under:
"The assessee is a co-operative society has shown interest income of Rs.29,09,555/- the return of income being interest earned from bank. This amount was claimed as eligible for deduction u/s 80P which the Ld. CPC has not allowed of the base did not mentioned anyway.
Such mater have been considered by the Hon'ble CBDT vide Circular No. 18/2015 dated 2-11-2015 (copy enclosed). The Hon’ble CBDT has at para 3 as specifically mentioned that in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 289 ITR 6 (SC).
In view of the above it is humbly submitted that the disallowance made by the ld.CPC Bangalore without giving any reason is illegal and also in view of the CBDT’s instruction the interest income is to be allowed as deduction u/s 80P.
4. It is therefore prays that appeal filed may kindly be allowed."
After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) passed the following orders:
“6.3 From the observation of the CPC, Bangalore as reproduced in para 6.1 above, it is presumed that the appellant did not provide complete information in its return of income. Further, the appellant did not provide any information during appeal proceedings also. As can be seen from appellant's submissions as reproduced in para 6.2 above, the appellant merely submitted that it is eligible, for Reduction u/s 80P of the Act on bank Interest income of Rs.29,09,555/- in view of CBDT Circular No. 18/2015dated 2-11-2015. Beyond this, no details were filed.
6.4 Section 80P of the Act allows certain deductions in respect of Co- operative Societies. In the absence of details, it is not clear whether the appellant fulfills condition for claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act on interest income of Rs.29,09,555/-.
6.5 Further, it is seen that the appellant has directly filed appeal against the processing done by the CPC, Bangalore. The proper course would have been to file rectification applications u/s.154 of the Act before the CPC, Bangalore.
6.6 In view of discussion above, it is held that the CPC, Bangalore has rightly disallowed the deduction of Rs.29,00,258/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act, Accordingly, action of the CPC, Bangalore in disallowing deduction of Rs.29,00,258/- u/s.80P of the Act is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed.”
Aggrieved against the order, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notices of hearing issued from time to time as can be seen from the order sheet dated 10.7.2020, 17.2.2020 and 8.11.2021. Nor any adjournment has been filed. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal with the assistance of the ld.DR and considering material available on record.
The ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not filed any details with regard to their claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act.
4 In the return the assessee has also filed break-up of income of Rs.29,09,555/- claimed as deduction under section 80P under the head “Income from other sources” neither during the assessment proceedings nor before the appellate proceedings. Except mere claim that the claim of deduction of Rs.29,09,555/- was as per the CBDT Circular No.18/2015 dated 2.11.2015, but there was no supporting evidence or explanation from the assessee. In spite of number of opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee failed to file any details relating to the impugned claim of deduction. Therefore, in the absence of necessary details, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee, which requires to be confirmed.
We have considered the submissions of the ld.DR and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and material available on record. We find that the only issue is regarding disallowance by CPC of deduction of Rs.29,00,258/- claimed under section 80P of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) in para 6.1 has mentioned, as observed by the CPC, that deduction under Chapter-VIA will not be allowed unless respective schedules are filled properly. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) has provided number opportunities to the assessee to explain and furnish requisite details to support its claim of deduction under section 80P. Though the assessee has filed a short reply vide letter dated 26.9.2017 (which we extracted above), but the same was not supported by any material evidence to justify the same. In the absence of any details, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. Before the Tribunal also, as aforesaid, the assessee has given number of opportunity to defend its case, however, the assessee remained unattended and non-
5 represented. Like in the first appellate proceeding, even before us also there was no material to decide the case of the assessee on merit. It is settled principle of law that the assessee who is claiming a deduction should come with full details and evidences of such claim. In the absence of the same, the authority cannot grant the relief to the assessee. Accordingly, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal pending before the Tribunal in spite of six hearing notices duly served. Therefore, in the absence of any material to adjudicate its case, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we reject all grounds of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 8th April, 2022 at Ahmedabad.