Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Motimarad Juth Seva Sahakari Mandli ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1),, ... on 7 December, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, राजकोट यायपीठ, राजकोट ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 197 & 249/Rjt/2017
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13)
Motimarad Juth Seva बनाम/ The ITO,
Sahakari, Mandli Ltd., Vs. Ward-2(1)(1),
Rajkot. Rajkot.
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AAAAM 0770 E
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. M Rindani, A.R.
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R.
ु वाई क तार ख /
सन Date of Hearing 24/10/2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronounce ment 07/12/2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, vide Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-2/0312/2015-16 & CIT(A)-2/0081/2015-16 dated. 22.03.2017 & 01.05.2017 for the Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2013-14 & 2012-13.
ITA Nos.197 & 249-Rjt-2017 Motimarad Juth Seva Shakari vs. ITO Asst.Years -2013-14 & 2012-13 -2-
2. First, we take up assessee's grounds of appeal in ITA No.249/Rjt/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13:
1. "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs. 17,748/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act, being dividend received from cooperative societies namely Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Ltd. and Gujarat States Fertilizer Company Ltd. which is alternatively eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)of the Act.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing decoction of Rs.2,30,099/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act, being interest receded from deposits placed with a co-
operative society namely Rajkot District Cc-cp. Bank Ltd. which is alternatively eligible for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs. 80,579/- claimed u/s SOP of the Act being aggregate of incomes by way of flour mill rent, weigh bridge and other contingent income.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in estimating expenses of Rs.3,78,755/- as against expenses claimed by the appellant.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs.1,90,686/- claimed u/s SOP of the Act being income from Anaj-2 division.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal."
3. At the outset, the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that the AO had passed a nonspeaking order and without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
ITA Nos.197 & 249-Rjt-2017 Motimarad Juth Seva Shakari vs. ITO Asst.Years -2013-14 & 2012-13 -3-
4. The learned AR also submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also passed the order after having a reliance on the order of his predecessor pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11 and without understanding the facts of the case in the year under consideration.
In view of the above, the learned AR prayed before us to restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provision of law.
5. On the other hand, ld. DR did not object if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no ambiguity that the order passed by the AO is nonspeaking order. The provision of law requires to pass the speaking order with the reasoning and after giving the proper opportunity to the assessee.
6.1 We also note that the assessee has raised several contentions before the learned CIT(A) whereas the learned CIT(A) without adjudicating the same has just placed his reliance on the order of his predecessor pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11 and upheld the addition made by the AO.
ITA Nos.197 & 249-Rjt-2017 Motimarad Juth Seva Shakari vs. ITO Asst.Years -2013-14 & 2012-13 -4- From the preceding discussion, there is no doubt that the order of the AO is nonspeaking order and there was no remand report called by the learned CIT(A) from the AO on the submission filed by the assessee. Therefore, after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, we are inclined to send all the grounds of appeal to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and in accordance with the provision of law. The AO is directed to pass the speaking order with reasoning. It is needless to mention that the assessee before the AO shall extend full cooperation and assistance during the assessment proceedings. Hence, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. Now we take up Grounds of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.197/Rjt/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14:
1. "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred, confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs.1,37,605/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act being aggregate of incomes by way of godown rent, floor mill rent and weigh bridge.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,91,747/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act, being dividend received from a co-operative society namely Rajkot District Co-op. Bank Ltd. which is alternatively eligible for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction of Rs.2,63,331/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act, being interest received from deposits placed with a co-
operative society namely Rajkot District Co-op. Bank Ltd. which is alternatively eligible for deduction u/s.80(P)(2)(d) of the Act.
ITA Nos.197 & 249-Rjt-2017 Motimarad Juth Seva Shakari vs. ITO Asst.Years -2013-14 & 2012-13 -5- The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal."
8. All the issue in this appeal are identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.249/Rjt/2017 pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13 which we have retored to AO for fresh adjudication vide para no. 6 & 6.1 of this order.
8.1 We also note that the appeal filed vides ITA No. 249/Rjt/2017 was restored to the file of AO due to reason that the AO passed nonspeaking order. But the order of the AO for the year under consideration is a speaking order. So it cannot be equated with the order of AO pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13.
However, we feel that if we decide the issue on hand for the year under consideration, it will be binding on the lower authorities. Accordingly, there will remain no scope for the assessing officer to apply his mind in the case pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13 being ITA No.249/Rjt/2017. Thus, there will not arise any benefit by restoring the matter to the AO for the year under consideration 2012-13 and deciding the issue on merit for the year under consideration. Therefore, to avoid any ambiguity which might arise in the given facts and circumstances, we are inclined to restore all the issues raised to restore to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance to the provision of law for the appeal under ITA Nos.197 & 249-Rjt-2017 Motimarad Juth Seva Shakari vs. ITO Asst.Years -2013-14 & 2012-13 -6- consideration. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/12/2018
sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 07/12/2018
Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
आदे श क ! त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं'धत आयकर आयु)त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु)त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 2, Rajkot.
5. *वभागीय -त-न'ध, आयकर अपील य अ'धकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Rajkot
6. गाड0 फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स या*पत -त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot
1. Date of dictation ...31/10/2018 (Dictation Page-4)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member : 05/12/2018
3. Other Member...........
4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06/12/2018
5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement..............
6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S...........
7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.........
8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk...
9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order............
10. Date of Despatch of the Order..................