Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna V. Radhe Radhe Labour Co-Op Society Ltd, Jalna

MA 101/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna as the applicant and Radhe Radhe Labour Co.Op. Society Ltd. as the respondent. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking to rectify the tribunal's earlier decision which had treated the scrutiny of the assessee's case as 'limited'. The tribunal, upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, acknowledged the error in their previous order and corrected the scope of scrutiny to 'complete'. The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.15,39,405 to the assessee's income but allowed the deduction under section 80P, referencing the case of Indwell Constructions vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) which supports that no specific disallowance could be made after rejection of books of accounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137686 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Indwell Constructions vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP)
• Laws Referred To: CBDT's instructions dated 08.09.2010, Section 80P of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.101/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA No.1590/PUN/2018 - Assessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna vs. Radhe Radhe Labour Co.Op. Society Ltd., R.P. Road, Jalna – 431203 PAN: AAAAR2827F Applicant Respondent Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 20.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 17.02.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.101/Pun./2022, seeks to recall/rectify the tribunal’s ex- parte order dated 04.04.2019 allowing assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1590/PUN./2018 thereby treating it as a case of “limited” scrutiny than a complete one. 2. Case called twice. None appear’s at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Heard the department. Case file perused. 3. Learned DR vehemently argued in light of the CBDT’s instructions dated 08.09.2010 that the Assessing MA No.101/PUN/2022 arising out of ITA No.1590/PUN/2018 2 Officer had indeed taken-up a “complete” scrutiny only than a “limited” one and, therefore, we have erred in law and on facts in holding that the impugned disallowance could not have been made in such an instance. 4. All these Revenue’s arguments indeed carry merit as it is evident during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had taken-up the assessee’s “complete” scrutiny only for the impugned assessment year 2015-16. We next find that the assessee had raised its three substantive grounds of G.P. estimation of profits @ 8%, sec.80P deduction disallowance and “limited” vis-à-vis “complete” scrutiny’s scope in the main appeal ITA.No.1590/PUN./2018 wherein the tribunal order dated 04.04.2019 had only allowed the foregoing third issue only. We thus, accept the Revenue’s instant M.A.101/PUN./ 2022 in very terms. 5. Next comes our adjudication regarding the assessee’s foregoing three substantive grounds. We make it clear that we have already decided the above stated third issue in Revenue’s favour and against the assessee in our foregoing detailed discussion. So far as its remaining two substantive grounds are concerned, we find no merit in its first and foremost issue challenging 8% G.P. estimation in light of learned lower authorities reasoning quoting its failure in MA No.101/PUN/2022 arising out of ITA No.1590/PUN/2018 3 properly maintaining regular books of accounts. This first substantive ground involving addition of Rs.15,39,405/- is rejected. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground regarding sec.80P deduction deserves to succeed in our considered opinion since no other specific disallowance could be made after rejection of books of accounts as held in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP). We thus, partly accept the assessee’s instant main appeal ITA.No.1590/ PUN./2018 only qua it’s second substantive grounds in other words. The first and foremost addition of Rs.15,39,405/- is upheld therefore. 7. To sum-up, this Revenue’s miscellaneous application No.101/PUN./2022 is accepted and the assessee’s corresponding main appeal ITA.No.1590/PUN./2018 is partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17.02.2023. d/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER प ु णे Pune; Ǒदनांक Dated : 17 th February, 2023 VBP/- MA No.101/PUN/2022 arising out of ITA No.1590/PUN/2018 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant; 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-1, Aurangabad िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune