Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik, Nashik

ITA 881/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0601 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA DESHPANDE
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.881 & 882/PUN./2023 [E-APPEALS] Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2017-2018 Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opp. Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik. PIN – 422 101. Maharashtra. PAN AAQCS3784G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (3), Income Tax Office, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 022 Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande Date of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049745666(1) and 1049745474(1), both dated 14.02.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 and sec.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2017-2018, respectively. Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Learned DR invited my attention to the fact that both these appeals suffer from 115 days delay each. A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the assessee has filed it’s common 2 ITA.No.881 & 882/PUN./2023 condonation petition(s) in both these appeals explaining the same. All these solemn averments have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. I thus quote Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. The impugned delay(s) is condoned. 3. Next come the assessee’s identical substantive ground(s) in it’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 reading as under : 1. “On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and having regards to the background of the appellant, the appellant humbly prays to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment order passed by A.O. u/s, 144 pleased by quashed as the same is without jurisdiction because the notice u/s.148 is issued by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik is without jurisdiction and also the assessment order is passed by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik is without jurisdiction as the same is passed without there being any order passed u/s.127 of the Act. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the AO without having Document Identification Number (DIN) or without following the procedure given in Circular issued by CBPI No.19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 may please be cancelled. 3 ITA.No.881 & 882/PUN./2023 4. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment order passed in the status of Company may please be quashed when undisputedly the status of the appellant is Co-operative Society. 5. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the A.O. is not justified in denying the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act by resorting to the provisions of section 80A(5) when the appellant has duly claimed the deduction u/s.80P In the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. 6. On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case, as per law and without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, the A.O, has erred in not granting the basic deduction of Rs.50,000/- u/s.80P of the Act. 7. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The assessee’s first and foremost grievance in both these appeals challenges the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction herein framing the impugned twin assessment(s). Hon’ble Delhi high court’s landmark decision in Abhishek Jain vs. ITO & Anr. [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Del.) has settled the law that such a challenge to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction has to be raised within the specified time limits u/sec.124(3)(a) and (b); as the case may be. The assessee has admittedly not complied with the foregoing statutory 4 ITA.No.881 & 882/PUN./2023 provision(s). It’s instant second substantive ground(s) fails in very terms. 5. The assessee’s identical third substantive ground(s) raised “document identification no.” [“DIN”]’s absence whilst framing the impugned twin assessment(s). A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s assessment(s) herein have been duly found as having proper DIN nos. There is no rebuttal to this clinching effect forthcoming in the instant twin case files. Rejected accordingly. 6. The assessee’s next substantive ground(s) reads that both the learned lower authorities have assessed it as a “Company” and not a “Co-operative Society”. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer’s former assessment for assessment year 2012-13 has treated it as a “cooperative society” whereas his latter order has shown it’s status as a “company”. The same is found to be a clerical/rectifiable mistake only than indicating the assessee to have suffered from any prejudice therefrom. The learned Assessing Officer has rather considered it’s sec.80P deduction claim on merits which is not available to “company” in foregoing terms. This identical third substantive ground(s) is declined therefore. 7. Lastly comes the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance of issue of merits claiming sec.80P deduction. It transpires from perusal of both the impugned assessments that it had not claimed the same by way of filing a return so as to comply with sec.80A(5) of the Act, held to be mandatory in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in EBR Enterprises vs. 5 ITA.No.881 & 882/PUN./2023 Union of India [2019] 107 taxmann.com 220 (Bom.). I thus see no substance in the assessee’s instant last ground as well. Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms. 8. The assessee’s latter appeal ITA.No.882/PUN./2023 also follows the suit since raising identical issue(s). 9. These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.881 & 882/PUN. /2023 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.03.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 19 th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.