The Kangod Group Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd., Sirsi V. ITO, Sirsi

ITA 1173/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0267 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS JT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1173/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE KANGOD GROUP MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., YADDALLI, SIRSI. UTTAR KANNADA DIST. PAN: AAAJK 0649K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SIRSI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), HUBLI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,98,732/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80P(2) (A)(I) OF THE IT ACT EVENTHOUGH THE APPELLANT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DE DUCTION. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,76,507/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80P(2)( D) OF THE IT ACT EVENTHOUGH THE DEDUCTION IS RIGHTLY CLAIMED. ITA NO.1173/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, WARD-I, SIRSI HOLDING RS. 3,39,874/- AS INCOME FROM KIRANA/ TRADING SECTION NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF IT S MEMBERS AND IT IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 80 P(2)(A)(III) OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS WRO NG IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITO WARD - I SIRSI AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS MISIN TERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P (2) (A) (I), 80P(4) AND 2 (24) (VIIA) OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT AFFORDING THE APPELLANT PROPER OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN IGNORING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF APPEAL H EARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT TH E CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE S IMPLE REASON THAT HE HAS NOT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAS ADVANCED ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFOR E THE CIT(A), BUT THE CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE NOT FILED DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT EVERYTIME THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IF THE ORAL ARGUMENTS ARE ADVANCED, T HE AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED ITA NO.1173/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 4 TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME AND ADJUDICATE THE A PPEAL ON MERITS. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THE LD. DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES, I FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED TO HIM. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE ORAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DECIDED T HE APPEAL ON MERITS, I SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE ADVANCES ORA L ARGUMENTS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 4 TH JULY, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.1173/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.