Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 October, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCHES "A", BANGALORE
Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM
ITA No.737/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2016-2017
Savanoor Primary Agriculture The Pr.Commissioner of
Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Income-tax, Panaji
Savanoor, Puttur
Dakshina Kannada District
Bangalore - 574 202.
PAN : AAEAT1118M.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sri.Abhijit, Advocate
Respondent by : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Date of
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2022 Pronouncement : 13.10.2022
ORDER
Per George George K, JM :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)'s order dated 30.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017.
2. There is a delay of 92 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of the assessee, stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for filing this appeal belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal and the delay cannot be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits.
3. The grounds raised read as follows:-
2 ITA No.737/Bang/2022Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd.
"1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), passed under section 263 of the Act in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the appellant's case.
2. The learned Pr.CIT erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the submission dated 14.03.2022 made by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Pr.CIT ought to have taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re The Mavilayi Service Co-op Bank Ltd. v. CIT 431 ITR 1 (SC) on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned Pr.CIT is not justified in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned Pr.CIT had no requisite jurisdiction necessary to issue the impugned order and consequently the proceedings are bad at law on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity."
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is an Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also distribution of articles through public distribution system. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 15.10.2016 declaring `Nil' total income after claiming deduction of Rs.43,22,848 u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 18.12.2018 by disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee and determining the 3 ITA No.737/Bang/2022 Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd.
income at Rs.43,22,850. Subsequently, the PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, proposing disallowance of provision for interest of Rs.9,66,066 debited in the profit and loss account along with Rs.50,000 debited towards reserve for audit fees. The PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 directing the A.O. to make de novo assessment after considering the above two issues mentioned. The PCIT passed ex parte order. The PCIT in para 3 of the impugned order held that the assessee has not made any submission to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. In light of the same, the PCIT had passed the ex parte order.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed objections to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act and copy of the acknowledgment was placed on record at page 4 of the paper book filed by the assessee. It was contended that the PCIT having passed the revisionary order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, without considering the objections of the assessee is bad in law and the same needs to be set aside.
6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the PCIT.
7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly in this case, the PCIT has passed ex parte order without taking into consideration the assessee's objections, which has been filed before him on 14.03.2021. Copy of the acknowledgement of the same is 4 ITA No.737/Bang/2022 Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-op.So.Ltd.
placed on record at page 4 of the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined afresh by the PCIT after taking into consideration the objections raised by the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of October, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (George George K)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Bangalore; Dated : 13th October, 2022.
Devadas G*
Copy to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT Panaji
4. The Pr.CIT, Bangalore.
5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru.
6. Guard File.
Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore