Grameena Seva Sahakari Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji)
ITAT Panaji allows cooperative society’s appeal, setting aside ex-parte CIT(A) order and remitting case for fresh hearing on Section 80P deduction.
Panaji: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji bench, has set aside an ex-parte order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) and restored the appeal of Grameena Seva Sahakari, a cooperative credit society, for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) had earlier dismissed the society’s appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices.
The case pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee had initially filed its return claiming a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, which was allowed in the original assessment completed in 2016. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings, believing that income had escaped assessment. In the reassessment order passed in March 2022, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P, resulting in a higher assessed income.
Aggrieved by this, the cooperative society filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) noted that despite issuing multiple notices for hearing, the assessee failed to comply or appear. Consequently, the CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex-parte based on the available information.
The society then approached the ITAT, challenging the ex-parte dismissal and contending that it had a strong case on the merits regarding the Section 80P deduction. The society’s representative pleaded for an opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.
The ITAT acknowledged that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities for hearing. However, considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the tribunal decided that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case with evidence.
The ITAT therefore set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remitted the disputed issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who, in turn, should cooperate in submitting the required information for the timely disposal of the appeal.
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PANAJI
