Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S. Handloom Weavers Co. Operative ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal on 13 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC-B" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1887/Bang/2018
Assessment Year :2014-15
M/s. Handloom Weavers Co-
operative Production and Sales
Society Ltd., The Income Tax Officer,
Main Bazar, Dothihal Post, Vs. Ward - 1,
KustagiTq., Koppala.
Koppala Dist. - 584 112.
PAN: AAAAH1288G
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri S. Venkatesh, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 04.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018
ORDER
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gulbarga dated 26.03.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The grounds raised by the assesseeare as under.
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) dated 26/03/2018, for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is not maintainable in law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the amount deposited by the appellant with Raichur District Co-Operative Society it is the appellant amount which was earned by the appellant out of the profit earned by appellant thus the levy of the tax on the earned interest by the assessing authority is not correct and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal is against the law.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that on the same issue in the previous year i.e. for the AY-2013-14 the CIT(A) was accepted the contention of the appellant and allowed the appeal in the appellant own case but in this year the change of opinion by the CIT(A) 86 disallowed the claim of ITA No.1887/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3 the appellant is not correct thus the order of CIT(A) is liable to be quashed.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was deposited the amount, under mandatory provision of Co Operative Society Act but without appreciating the same and disallowed the claim of the appellant is against the Law 86 thus the order of the assessing authority and CIT(A) is liable o be set aside.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the deposited amount is on the Mandatory Provision not to earn the income by the way of interest out of deposit therefore the interest received on deposited amount by the appellant is not liable to pay tax thus the levy of tax is liable to be set aside.
6. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Authority levied tax and the interest levied U/s 234B 86 234C is excessive, arbitrary and ought to be deleted.
7. For such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing and it is prays that kindly may allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The appeal was filed by the assessee on 31.05.2018 and as per acknowledgment cum notice issued by the Tribunal to the assessee at the time of the filing of appeal, the date of hearing was fixed on 04.07.2018 and it was mentioned therein. On this date, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment and hence, it is inferred that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal.
4. Respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Sd/-
(ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 13th July, 2018.
/MS/ ITA No.1887/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 3 Copy to:
1. Appellant 4. CIT(A)
2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Senior Private Secretary, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.