SUVERNAKARAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,HONNAVAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

ITA 248/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Panaji heard appeals from two cooperative societies, Shree Gomatesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and Suvernakarar Cooperative Society Ltd., against orders from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The appeals were initially dismissed by the NFAC due to non-prosecution, as the assessees failed to respond to notices. The tribunal found that the NFAC had not provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessees to present their cases, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the NFAC for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40512 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAZEERA MOHAMMAD LD.
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250; 80P

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI IT Assessment Year 1. Shree Gomatesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., A/P. Kothali, Tal. Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi-591287, Karnataka PAN:AACAS0980N Income Tax Officer, E-Assessment Centre, Belagavi ITA Nos. Assessment 2. Suvernakarar Cooperative KintalkeriHonnavar,Karnataka PAN:AAAAS1927M Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Belagavi AssesseeNo.1 by : Shri Chetan Assessee No.2 by : Shri ParmeshwaraBhat Revenue by Date of conclusive Hearing: Date of Pronouncement : PER BENCH (3:1) : The captioned appeals by separate ordersdated 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 Assessment Years :2018-19 and 2020-21 Urban Cooperative 591287, Karnataka .......Appellant V/s ....... Respondent ITA Nos. 247 & 248/PAN/2024 Assessment Years : 2014-15 and 2018-19 Suvernakarar Cooperative Society Ltd., KintalkeriHonnavar,Karnataka - 581334 . . . . . . . Appellant V/s National Faceless Assessment Centre, . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances No.1 by : Shri Chetan Chougule[‘Ld. AR’] No.2 by : Shri ParmeshwaraBhat [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by :Ms.Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing:27/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement :02 /12/2024 ORDER captioned appeals by differentasssesseesarefiled against 29/01/2024 and 16/08/2024 respectively IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . . . . . . Appellant . . . . . . . Respondent filed against the 2024 respectively passed u/s. 250 of the Income the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC’] stated assessment years 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, therefore partiesthese appeals for the sake of brevity & together for being disposed order. ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 Credit Society Ltd. 3. As far as the appeals ITA Nos.218 and 219/PAN/2024 are concerned, we find the appeals are time barred by limitation by 155 and 156 days respectively. The assessee has filed an affidavit 30/08/2024 explaining the reasons which led to delay in presenting the appeals. Having considered the reasons putforth by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee the stipulated time limit. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeals. 4. Without touching merits have heard the partieson limited issue of And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC’] years [for short ‘AY’]. facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, therefore, on the request of these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 – Shree Gomatesh Coop. as the appeals ITA Nos.218 and 219/PAN/2024 are the appeals are time barred by limitation by 155 and 156 days respectively. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in presenting the appeals. Having considered the reasons putforth by the we are of the considered opinion that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing these appeals the stipulated time limit. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeals. Without touching merits of these cases& grounds of appeal on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal by the ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 the Act’] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC’] for the facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt on the request of rival convenience are heard common & consolidated Shree Gomatesh Coop. as the appeals ITA Nos.218 and 219/PAN/2024 are the appeals are time barred by limitation by 155 and 156 days respectively. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated explaining the reasons which led to delay in presenting the appeals. Having considered the reasons putforth by the we are of the considered opinion that there was reasonable from filing these appeals within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, we condone the delay and & grounds of appeal, we dismissal by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 record. 5. Firstly, we espouse ITA No.218/PAN/2024 We note that, the assessee is case an assessment u/s. the AY 2014-15was passed total income of the assessee ow was assessed at ₹29,46,890 the assessee. Aggrieved assessee approached the ld. NFAC. The ld. NFAC issued notices to the assessee and 19/01/2024 respectively the assessee. In the event of failure of the assessee to respond to such notices, the ld.NFAC countenanced the addition made by AO, thereby dismissed the appeal for non 6. Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assesse for the AY 2020-21 in ITA No.219/PAN/2024 as well 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present twin appeals against former respective orders of Ld.NFAC common grounds. And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on Firstly, we espouse ITA No.218/PAN/2024 for AY 2014 We note that, the assessee is credit co-operative society in whose n assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) &143(3B) of the Act passed vide order dt.17/03/2021 whereby the total income of the assessee owing to disallowance of 80 29,46,890/- as against the NIL income returned the assessee. Aggrieved assessee approached the ld. NFAC. The ld. to the assessee on 22/02/2023, 10 respectively to which there was no compliance by the assessee. In the event of failure of the assessee to respond to such notices, the ld.NFAC countenanced the addition made by AO, thereby dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assesse in ITA No.219/PAN/2024 as well. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present twin appeals against former respective orders of Ld.NFACwith elaborative ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 perused material placed on for AY 2014-15. operative society in whose of the Act for whereby the ing to disallowance of 80P(2)(a)(i) as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved assessee approached the ld. NFAC. The ld. 2023, 10/01/2024 ompliance by the assessee. In the event of failure of the assessee to respond to such notices, the ld.NFAC countenanced the addition made by Ld. Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assessee’s appeal Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present twin appeals with elaborative 8. Without touching merits & grounds course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued separate notices dt.22/02/2023 2014-15 and like notices dt.25 12/01/2024 respectively the part of appellant to respond dismissed by the Ld. NFAC available on record. 9. On perusal of the impugned order of ld. NFAC for both the years under appeals, the havescheduled allowing Thisis apparently capable of suggesting meant to accord no real opportunity but to create a paper trail to showcase adherence to natural justic 10. It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty or paper formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity. It is a settled & accepted principle that, any oppor with a period less than a period of ‘reasonable period’, thus from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity. And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 Without touching merits & grounds,we noted that, during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued .22/02/2023, 10/01/2024 &19/01/2024 for AY notices dt.25/04/2023, 02/01/2024 and respectively for AY 2020-21. In the event of f to respond to these notices, the appeals were by the Ld. NFAC ex-parteon the basis of material On perusal of the impugned order of ld. NFAC for both the , the two hearing notices were revealed to allowing less than reasonable periodto comply capable of suggesting that, these notices real opportunity but to create a paper trail to natural justice. It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty or paper formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity. It is a settled & accepted principle that, any opportunity granted with a period less than a period of ‘fifteen clear days’ falls out from ‘reasonable period’, thus from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity. ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 that, during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued three 2024 for AY 2024 and In the event of failure on , the appeals were on the basis of material On perusal of the impugned order of ld. NFAC for both the revealed to to comply. notices were real opportunity but to create a paper trail to It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty or paper formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity. tunity granted falls out from ‘reasonable period’, thus from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity. 11. In this context of reasonable period/opportunity, t High court of Patna judgement in Education Society’ [2003 that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate c 12. In summation, the opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents/evidence in support of grounds of appeals raised therefore both the first natural justice, hence Theaforestatedcircumstances reasonable opportunity to the appellant to comply with notices and contest both the appeals on merits which can only be poss remand of these cases offering any comments on merits, we set orders and remand them NFAC with a direction deal therewith speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 In this context of reasonable period/opportunity, the Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian 2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’ has categorically held that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims made in the return of income. summation, the appellant was deprivedof opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents/evidence in support of grounds of appeals raised t appellate proceedings havesuffered from hence cannot be continued to stand circumstancesnecessitated us to grant opportunity to the appellant to comply with notices and the appeals on merits which can only be poss remand of these cases to Ld. NFAC. In view thereof, without offering any comments on merits, we set-aside both these them to the stage of their institution before Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-novo and pass orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 he Hon’ble ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian ’ has categorically held that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant laims made in the return of income. reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents/evidence in support of grounds of appeals raised, suffered from to stand. grant one more opportunity to the appellant to comply with notices and the appeals on merits which can only be possible on of, without se impugned to the stage of their institution before Ld. and pass separate ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 Society Ltd. 13. The facts anent to this assessee in relation to AY 2014 that the assessee is a Cooperative Society, filed the return of income at a total income of ₹23,520/ ₹31,60,821/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) accepting income without variation issue of notice u/s.148 and eventually the assessment came be passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act denying the claimed by the assessee. orders, assessee preferred ld.NFAC issued notices of hearing on 06 09/04/2024,20/06/2024 and 07 there was no compliance by the assessee. Failure on the assessee led to dismissal of appeal on record ex parte qua the assessee. 14. Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assesse for the AY 2018-19 in ITA No.2 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 – Suvernakarar Coop. The facts anent to this assessee in relation to AY 2014 that the assessee is a Cooperative Society, filed the return of income 23,520/- after claiming deduction u/s.80P at . The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) accepting the returned without variation. Thereafter, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 and eventually the assessment came be passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act denying the 80P claimed by the assessee. Assailing the respective a , assessee preferred separate appeals before the ld.NFAC. The ld.NFAC issued notices of hearing on 06/03/2024, 23 2024 and 07/08/2024 respectively to which there was no compliance by the assessee. Failure on the assessee led to dismissal of appealson the basis of material available qua the assessee. Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assesse in ITA No.248/PAN/2024 as well. ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 Suvernakarar Coop. The facts anent to this assessee in relation to AY 2014-15are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society, filed the return of income after claiming deduction u/s.80P at . The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the returned . Thereafter, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 and eventually the assessment came be 80P deduction assessment before the ld.NFAC. The 2024, 23/03/2024, 2024 respectively to which there was no compliance by the assessee. Failure on the part of on the basis of material available Similar situation prevailed in respect of the assessee’s appeal 15. Having heard the rival parties, we find by the impugned orders former assessee, falling short of legal requirement and violation of principles of natural justice. given in the case of former assessee remitting the issue back to the file of NFAC for denovo to this assessee as well. Ordered accordingly. 16. In result, the appeals filed by both the assessees’ statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER 02nd December, 2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji // True Copy // And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 Having heard the rival parties, we find the decision s for both the years are similar to that of the former assessee, falling short of legal requirement and violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, following our reasoning given in the case of former assessee remitting the issue back to the adjudication would apply mutatis mutandis to this assessee as well. Ordered accordingly. the appeals filed by both the assessees’ are allowed for In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITA Nos.218 & 219/PAN/2024 And ITA Nos.247 & 248/PAN/2024 decision arrived at for both the years are similar to that of the former assessee, falling short of legal requirement and violation of ur reasoning given in the case of former assessee remitting the issue back to the mutatis mutandis are allowed for G. D. PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned By Order, / AR ITAT, Panaji. "