ARANDAVALI PASHUPALAK MANDAL,AARANDAVALI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 63/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Arandavali Pashupalak Mandal, an Association of Persons (AOP) primarily engaged in supporting small farmers and animal keepers by procuring milk and supplying it to the Kutch District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., affiliated with AMUL. The appellant did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19, leading to a reopening of the assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a significant cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,30,22,000 from a cooperative bank. The appellant's failure to respond to notices led to an ex-parte assessment. The appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies, prompting the current appeal to the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35643 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGHNESH PARIKH; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 13

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील\tय अ धकरण,राजकोट \u0011यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 63/RJT/2024 (\rनधा\u0011रण वष\u0011/Assessment Year: (2018-19) \rनधा\u0011\u0015रती क\u0017 ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Jighnesh Parikh, Ld. AR \u001a\u001bयथ\u001d ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.(DR) सुनवाई क\u0017 तार!ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क\u0017 तार!ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13 /11 /2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “the Ld. CIT (A)”], National Arandavali Pashupalak Mandal, Arandavali Bhuj, Kutchh, Gujarat - 370001 Vs. Income tax officer, ward 3, near Leuva Patel Hospital, Mundra Road, Bhuj, Gujarat - 370001 'थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFAA2782F (अपीलाथ\u001d/Appellant) (\u001a\u001bयथ\u001d/Respondent) Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi order dated 12.01.2024 for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal are following: i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on account of failure of appellant to respond to the deficiency pointed out in form 35. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the order of the assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ ITO ward 3, Gandhidham (Bhuj 1) (for the sake of brevity “the AO”) passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the action of AO in carrying out reopening u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 2,30,22,000/- u/s. 69A. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the action of AO in taxing Rs. 2,30,22,000/- u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. vi. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the action of AO in AO in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. vii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in upholding the action of AO in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. viii. The appellant further reserves its right to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. 3. Facts of the case, the appellant is a AOP and the mainly formed for the helping to the small farmers & animals takers of the village area. The assessee is are procuring the milk form the small farmers & animal takers & the same milk is supplied to the federal society Kutch district Co operative Milk produces Union Ltd. which is Affiliated with AMUL brand for the A. Y. 2018-19. The assessee has not filed return of income the case is reopened for assessment with approval of Pr.CIT, Rajkot. Notice under section 148 of the act was issued on dated 26.03.2022. 4. The department has got the information that the assessee has cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,30,22,000/- from Kutch district, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Since the assessee did not complied with the notice issued for hearing of the case and an ex- parte assessment under section 147/144 of the Act was framed on 22.03.2023 on amount of Rs. 2,30,22,000/-. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) that The Ld. CIT(A) has noted the certain deficiency in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is reproduced. In result appeal is dismissed for the statically purpose. 6. That The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order before us. 7. The Ld.AR submitted that there was misunderstanding between the appellant and Authorized representative. Hence, the notice issued before the Ld. CIT(A) was not complied with. Appellant prayed for one opportunity to be given to represent the case. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. DR has note objected the prayer of the appellant. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. We note that in Form 35, the E-mail Id of the appellant was mentioned and notice issued on the E-mail Id was never looked in by the appellant because the appellant was with a view that the authorized representative CA will look into the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) 9. We note that the appellant Arandavali Pashupalak Mandal is a association, the AOP was mainly formed for the helping to the small farmers & animals takers of the village area. The assessee is are procuring the milk form the small farmers & animal takers & the same milk is supplied to the federal society Kutch district Co operative Milk produces Union Ltd. which is Affiliated with AMUL brand. 10. We noted that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is silent on service of the notice to the appellant. We further noted that no return was filed no tax deposit, Form 35 was filled wrongly. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present his case before the Lower authority 11. We note that it is settled law and principle of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard contest his case. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The assessee is also direct to furnish relevant documents and evidences before the AO as and when call for, and should not seek unnecessary adjournments. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statically purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13 /11 /2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) लेखासद\u0007य/ Accountant Member \tयाियकसद\u0007य/ Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot *दनांक/ Date: 13 /11 /2024 By order/आदेशसे, सहायकपंजीकार आयकरअपील!यअ,धकरण ,राजकोट "