2022 (4) TMI 502 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P - income being interest earned from bank - as observed by the CPC, that deduction under Chapter-VIA will not be allowed unless respective schedules are filled properly - HELD THAT - Though the assessee has filed a short reply but the same was not supported by any material evidence to justify the same. In the absence of any details, CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. Before the Tribunal also, as aforesaid, the assessee has given number of opportunity to defend its case, however, the assessee remained unattended and non- represented. Like in the first appellate proceeding, even before us also there was no material to decide the case of the assessee on merit. It is settled principle of law that the assessee who is claiming a deduction should come with full details and evidences of such claim. In the absence of the same, the authority cannot grant the relief to the assessee. Accordingly, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal pending before the Tribunal in spite of six hearing notices duly served. Therefore, in the absence of any material to adjudicate its case, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we reject all grounds of appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Disallowance of deduction under section 80P of ?29,00,258/-.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under section 80P of ?29,00,258/-:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary contention raised in the appeal was the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80P of ?29,00,258/-. The assessee, a cooperative society, had declared total income of ?1,44,11,553/-, claiming the entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. However, the Central Processing Centre (CPC) in Bangalore restricted the deduction to ?1,15,01,998/-, resulting in an assessable income of ?29,09,560/-. Subsequently, an intimation was issued demanding tax of ?8,30,520/-. The ld. Commissioner noted that the appellant did not provide complete information during the proceedings, and the submissions made were insufficient to justify the claim. The appellant failed to provide necessary details to support the claim of deduction under section 80P. The ld. Commissioner upheld the disallowance of the deduction by the CPC, Bangalore, as the appellant did not fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction under section 80P. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not provide any material evidence to justify the claim, even after multiple opportunities. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing full details and evidence to support a deduction claim. As the appellant failed to present any material to support its case, the appeal was dismissed, and all grounds of appeal were rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to disallow the deduction under section 80P of ?29,00,258/-, as the appellant failed to provide necessary details and evidence to support the claim, both before the ld. Commissioner and the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and all grounds of appeal were rejected.