M/S GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, Dhamtari(C.G) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 46/BIL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2582 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.46/RPR/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, VILL.- RAMPUR, DHAMTARI (CG). VS. ITO, DHAMTARI (CG). PAN : AAAAG9881A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.47/RPR/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, VILL.- DEMAR, DISTT- DHAMTARI (CG). VS. ITO, DHAMTARI (CG). PAN : AAAAG9785B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.48/RPR/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, VILL.- MOHADI, DISTT- DHAMTARI (CG). VS. ITO, DHAMTARI (CG). PAN : AAAAG9991P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL KR. AGRAWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-08-2018 2 ITA NOS.46 TO 48/RPR/2016 O R D E R PER BENCH : THE ABOVE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 15.12.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 1, RAIPUR (CG) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE IDENTIC AL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN THEIR APPEALS CHALLE NGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS FIELD BY THEM, THE REFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ALL THE AB OVE ASSESSEES ARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKIN G ACTIVITIES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE MEMBERS ONLY ALONG WITH SOME OTHER BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES LIKE :- (A) TRADING OF FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES & SEED. (B) PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN INCLUDES SUGAR, R ICE, WHEAT AND KEROSENE. (C) PADDY PROCUREMENT BUSINESS AS COMMISSION AGENT. 3. ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE R ETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-P OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-P AND AFTER MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES DETERMI NED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,77,020/- IN THE CASE OF GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI S AMITI MARYADIT, RAMPUR, 3 ITA NOS.46 TO 48/RPR/2016 RS.7,74,760/- IN THE CASE OF GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI S AMITI MARYADIT, DEMAR AND RS.2,92,548/- IN THE CASE OF GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI S AMITI MARYADIT, MOHADI. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO TH E APPELLATE ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MENTIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SUBMISSION DATED 26.11.2015. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE SECOND SUBMISSION DATED 02.02.2016 WAS FILED, THE APPEALS WERE ALREADY DECIDED BY HIM ON 1 5.12.2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT GIV EN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 WHICH CONTAIN A COMPILATION O F PERCENTAGE OF PADDY PROCURED FROM MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS. HE SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BE ADMITTED AND TH E MATTER MAY BE RESTORED EITHER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE BENCH DEEMS IT PROPER. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY OPPOSED TH E SUBMISSION AS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS WERE FIXED VIDE NOTICE DATED 06.10.2015 AND 26.11.2 015. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 26.11. 2015 AND ON THE BASIS OF 4 ITA NOS.46 TO 48/RPR/2016 SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE CASES WERE DECI DED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2015. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE I SSUE ON MERIT, THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED AND THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD FILED ANOT HER SUBMISSION DATED 02.02.2016 AND BY THAT TIME THE APPEALS WERE ALREAD Y DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2015. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, SHOULD BE ADMITTED. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMIS SION THAT THE SUBMISSION DATED 02.02.2016 WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SIN CE BY THAT TIME THE ORDER WAS ALREADY PASSED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FINAL OPPORTUN ITY TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CASES. THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 ITA NOS.46 TO 48/RPR/2016 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTI VE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON THIS 16 TH AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16-08-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., RAIPUR. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR