2022 (6) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es at the outset that the assessee's instant appeal suffers from 36 days delay involving Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period only. The same stands condoned for this precise reason alone. 3. Next comes the assessee's sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities' action denying section 80P deduction of Rs.38,69,712/- in the course of assessment dated 13.11.2019 as upheld in the CIT(A) detailed discussions as follows :- "6. Examination of the issue and decision: - 6.1 I have carefully considered the AO's viewpoint contained in the Assessment Order and the submission made by the appellant in the matter. 6.2 The crux of the appellant's submission is that during the year under consideration the appellant c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es that shenkhat and palapachola is purchased from outside. Thus, the profit of Rs. 38,69,712/- on selling of Shenkhat and Palapachola is not seen for the benefit of members and not according to objectives mentioned in Bye laws of society. The motive of supplying the shenkhat and palapachola is to earn more profit which is outside from the preview of objectives mentioned in Bye-laws of the society. Accordingly, deduction of Rs. 38,69,712/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, is not allowed. Reliance of the Hon'bel Kerala High Court's decision in the case of M/s Nileswar Range Kallu Chetu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahararnama Sangham Vs. CIT, Calicut in ITA 141 of 2014 13/08/2015 wherein similar have been decided in favour of the Dept." As such, I am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AO. 6.6 Having failed to substantiate the claim before the AO, the appellant cannot call the AO's action, "illegal and untenable" or equate its claim to those cases here such replies were filed and claims substantiated. The AO's action in not allowing unsubstantiated claims of the appellant cannot be found fault with. This ground of appeal is thus held against the appellant and the appeal is dismissed." 4. Mr. Desai vehemently argued that this assessee is a milk cooperative who has claimed the impugned deduction regarding income derived from sale of "Shenkhat" and "Palapachola" to its members involving Rs.47,07,450/-. I find no merit in the learned lower authorities' stand first of all since this is not a case involving bogus purchase of....