Jalna Mathadi Board, Jalna V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 84/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0442 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.84/PN/2015 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 JALNA MATHADI BOARD, IST FLOOR, DEVGANGA CHAMBERS, SAROJINI DEVI ROAD, JALNA 431203 PAN : AAATJ7889C . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 13-11-2014 OF THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE EXPARTE APP EAL ORDER FOR FAILURE TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON THE APPO INTED DATE. THAT CONSIDERING THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT THE INCOME OF THE BOARD WAS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL. THE APPE LLANT / DATE OF HEARING :21.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 .11.2016 2 ITA NO.84/PN/2015 ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY ITS CONSULTANT. THE PLEADING BY THE CONSULTANT WAS TOTALLY WRONG AS HE HAD PLEADED THAT THE INCOME WAS EXEMPT U/S.80P(2)(A)OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE FOR REFRAMING THE SAME FRESH CONSIDERING THE EFFE CT OF THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) B E SET ASIDE TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD/AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY INCORPORATED SINCE 1988 AND IS WORKING FOR UNORGANIZED LABOURERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 25-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,67,968/-. IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A )(I). THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 02-11-2012 ACCEP TING THE INCOME RETURNED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT REQUESTING THE ACIT, CPC, B ANGALORE TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF TH E ACT. HOWEVER, THE ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE REJECTED THE APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, SINCE DESPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE NOBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WAS FILED, THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE AP PEAL EXPARTE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) SINCE NOTICE WA S ISSUED ONLY ONCE AND EXPARTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT(A ). HE 3 ITA NO.84/PN/2015 ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND WHILE OPPOSING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE LD.CIT (A) PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GRANTING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. NODOUBT NOT ICE HAS BEEN SENT BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AS TO HOW MANY TIMES HE HAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT ONLY ONCE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THERE WAS NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A ). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-11-2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. 4 ITA NO.84/PN/2015 ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // # % / TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A ), AUR ANGABAD 4. 5. THE CIT, AURANGABAD # %%*, *, B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.