2015 (10) TMI 407 - AT - Income Tax

Addition in respect of Administrative 56, 88, 446 (eligible for deduction u/s 80P and not disputed by AO. There was a loss of 40, 93, 683/- on the sale of agricultural & non-agri. items to the Members & Non-members so deduction u/s. 80P does not apply but the basis of above finding of the CIT(A) is not clear from his order. In the above circumstances in our considered view it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and thereafter adjudicating the issue afresh by passing a speaking order. We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue as per law after proper verification and after allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Application for adjournment dismissed by ITAT
2. Dispute over deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act
3. Maintenance of separate books of accounts for exempt and non-exempt income
4. Comparison of facts with A.Y. 2007-08
5. Decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer

1. Application for adjournment dismissed by ITAT:
The ITAT dismissed an adjournment application filed by the ld. A.R. due to the reason not being justifiable. Consequently, the ITAT proceeded to decide the issue on merits ex-parte qua the Assessee.

2. Dispute over deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act:
The Assessee, a Co.op. Society engaged in agricultural and non-agricultural activities, had claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. The A.O. reworked the deduction as he found the Assessee had claimed deduction on profits from both exempted and non-exempted activities. The ld. CIT(A) decided in favor of the Assessee, citing the decision in the Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08.

3. Maintenance of separate books of accounts for exempt and non-exempt income:
The A.O. contended that the Assessee, engaged in mixed activities, should maintain separate books of accounts for exempt and non-exempt income. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessee maintained separate books of accounts, contrary to the A.O.'s assertion. The ITAT directed the A.O. to verify the books of accounts properly before making a decision.

4. Comparison of facts with A.Y. 2007-08:
The Revenue pointed out similarities between the current case and A.Y. 2007-08, where the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the A.O. The ITAT acknowledged the similarities and decided to follow the Tribunal's order for A.Y. 2007-08, directing the issue to be restored back to the A.O. for proper verification.

5. Decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer:
Given the identical nature of facts with A.Y. 2007-08, the ITAT decided to restore the issue back to the A.O. for proper verification, similar to the decision taken for A.Y. 2007-08. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment addressed various issues such as the dismissal of an adjournment application, the dispute over deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, the necessity of maintaining separate books of accounts, comparison of facts with a previous year, and the decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification. The ITAT's decision was based on careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions, ensuring a fair and just outcome.

← Previous Next →