DAKSHATA POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATNSANSTHA M NANDED,NANDED V. ITO WARD (1) , NANDED

ITA 1855/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dakshata Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanshta M Nanded, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which directed the appellant to produce documents supporting their claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to impose such a directive and that the time limit given to submit documents was insufficient, leading to an inability to comply. The Assessing Officer had earlier modified the assessment order, resulting in a significant addition to the income, which the appellant claimed was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the deduction claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469588 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: BASHIRUDDIN SHAIKH
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 250; 80P

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \" ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1855/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dakshata Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanshta M Nanded, Snehnagar, Nandede- 431602, Maharshtra PAN-AAAAD3511C Vs. ITO Ward (1), Nanded अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: Adv. Bashiruddin Shaikh Department by: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing: 27-01-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29-01-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER Dr. Manish Borad, AM :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25-06-2024 which is arising out of order filed u/s 250 against the Order of AO u/s 144 of Income Tax Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] grante the appellant a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the ord dated 06-06-2024 to produce the relevant documents supporting the claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the sa direction is illegal and beyond the Jurisdiction of CIT(A). 2. Ld. CITYA) passed appeal order with direction; however, the appellant w not aware that the appeal order had been passed with such a time-bou directive. Due to this time limit, the appellant was unable to submit relevant documents within the stipulated time frame, leading to insufficient submission. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), while passing the order dated 25-06-20 to give effect to the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi's order dated 06/06/2024 the Assessment Year 2020-21, has made a modification in assessment order under section 144 read with section 144B of the Inec Tax Act, 1961, dated 28/09/2022. This modification, which resultec an addition of Rs.4,35,85,085/-, is respectfully submitted to be a gu violation of the principles of natural justice. ITA No.1855/PUN/2024 2 4. The Appellate Craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, rew substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessar the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on Para 9 stated that Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer. He further prayed that since necessary details were not filed before the AO in support of the claim of deduction of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the issue raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the file of AO for necessary verification. 3(a) Ld. DR failed to controvert the contentions given by Ld. counsel of the assessee. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee is engaged in accepting, depositing and providing credit facilities to its members and has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved with the finding of LD. CIT(A) restoring the issue of correctness of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) had no such powers under the Act to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). 5. We however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case observe that the assessee had not furnished requisite details of the case before both the authorities to prove the correctness of the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs. 4,34,82,376/- However in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we deem it proper to restore the issue raised on merit before us to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for making necessary verification of the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Further the assessee is directed to place necessary details on the date of hearing and should not take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable clause. Assessee is also directed to ensure that its correct email address and Mobile No. are updated on the Income Tax Website (In case they are changed). ITA No.1855/PUN/2024 3 6. In result appeal of the assessee is allowed for stastical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated :- 29th January, 2025. Copy to :- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Pune. 4. DR, ITAT, \"A\" Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //True Copy// //By Order// Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT Pune Benches, Pune "