Sangli Patbandhare Mandal Antragat Pagardar Karmacharyanchi Pat Sanstha , Sangli V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Sangli

ITA 2339/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6980 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NOS.2338 & 2339/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 SANGLI PATBANDHARE MANDAL ANTRAGAT PAGARDAR KARMACHARYANCHI PAT SANSTHA, WARNALI CAMPUS, WARNALI ROAD, VISHRAMBAG, TAL-MIRAJ, DIST-SANGLI-416415. PAN : AAAJS2063B . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), SANGLI. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. C. MALAKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 14.02.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.03.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND THE SAME RELATES TO THE AVAILABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN RENTAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . 2. IN GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CIT(A) FAILURE TO GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NOS.2338 & 2339/PUN/2017 - 2 - 3. BRIEFLY STATED BASIC FACTS INCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE OWNS A HALL NAMELY MANGALKARYALAY. THE SAME GAVE RISE TO RENTAL INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE SAME DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID RENTAL RECEIPTS. OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT INCOME. WHILE ARGUING THE SAME BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TOO. 4. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE SAME DISPUTE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. IN THE PROCESS, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON PUNE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARIHANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATA SANSTHA LTD., SANGALI VIDE ITA NO.473/PN/2010, ORDER DATED 26.08.2011. 5. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND PERSONALLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THERE WERE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT SPECIFIED IN PARAS 5 TO 7 OF THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. REFERRING TO THE SAID JUDGEMENTS, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE ME, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE WOULD MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLEADED FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ITA NOS.2338 & 2339/PUN/2017 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR RELIED DUTIFULLY ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A). WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF ADDITION, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND OBTAINED THE COMMENTS FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE FAILURE TO ATTEND BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT PROPER. THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ARGUED THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE IN FORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUE OF MORE NOTICES FOR MEANINGFUL ADJUDICATION OF THE CIT(A). THIS KIND OF ADJUDICATION OF APPEALS WILL ONLY PREFER THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE, I AM OF THE OPINION, THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT BECOME ACADEMIC EXERCISE. THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. ITA NOS.2338 & 2339/PUN/2017 - 4 - 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 01 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 01 ST MARCH, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-1, KOLHAPUR; 4. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLHAPUR; 5. , , - / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE