Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd, Solapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2, Solapur

ITA 1845/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0535 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1845/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd., Arvind Commercial Complex, Balives, Budhwar Peth, Solapur- 413002. PAN : AAAAV1117C Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Solapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 05.09.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a firm engaged in the business of construction of flats and sale & purchase of plots. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 24.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,03,75,940/-. Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 06.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2022 ITA No.1845/PUN/2018 2 Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Solapur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 04.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1,58,43,770/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs.53,34,739/- being interest paid to the members for non-deduction of tax at source. 3. Being aggrieved by the above disallowance, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the above disallowance on account of non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, when the matter was called on for hearing, Shri Pramod Shingte, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the adjournment petition, which was filed before the ld. CIT(A) and contending that the ld. CIT(A) without disposing of the said adjournment petition had proceeded with the disposal of the appeal ex-parte to the prejudice of the appellant. Hence, it is requested that the matter be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The ld. Sr. DR has no serious ITA No.1845/PUN/2018 3 objection for remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 06 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 06 th January, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-7, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-6, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.