IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL , VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.1 126 /PUN/2019 / ASSESSMEN T YEA R : 2015 - 16 JIVRAM TUKARAM MAHAJAN CO. OP. FRUIT SALE SOCIETY LTD., AT & POST NHAVI, TALUKA YAWAL, DIST. JALGAON, NHAVI - 425524 PAN : AA AAJ9400G .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(4), JALGAON / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. ELSY MATHEW, ACIT / DATE OF HEARING : 05 . 0 2 .20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 6 .0 2 .2020 / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 2 , NASHIK ON 0 7 .0 5 .2019 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 5 - 1 6 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DENIAL 2 ITA NO. 1 126 /PUN/20 1 9 A.Y. 20 15 - 16 OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 76,510/ - CLAIMING INTER - ALIA, DED UCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.14,64,987/ - AND U/S 80P(2)(C)(II) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEDUCTION. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANAT ION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P IN ENTIRETY . DURING THE COURSE OF THE F IRST A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RENEWAL OF LICENCE TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS WAS FOR THE PERIOD 04.11.2015 TO 03.11.2018, WHICH IMPLIED THAT THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS WITHOUT ANY RENEWAL CERTIFICAT E . APART THEREFROM, T HE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND CERTAIN OTHER INFIRMITIES AND HENCE, UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE, DESPITE NOTICE S . AS SUCH, I AM PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO. 1 126 /PUN/20 1 9 A.Y. 20 15 - 16 5. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RENEWAL OF THE LICENCE FOR CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS RELEVANT TO THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACTOR ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) PRIMA FACIE MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U /S 80P OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PUT IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I , THEREFORE, UPH O LD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6 . IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 6 TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY , 20 20 . SD/ - R.S. SYAL /VICE - PRESIDENT / PUNE; / DATED : 6 TH FEBR UARY , 20 20 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 2 , NASHIK . 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , NASHIK . 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 4 ITA NO. 1 126 /PUN/20 1 9 A.Y. 20 15 - 16 * DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 6 . 0 2 .20 20 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 6 . 0 2 .20 20 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER