JADUPUR ANCHAL SKUS LTD.,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1796/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 September 2026AY 2015-20167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as a duplicate without proper verification. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on its merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a primary agriculture credit society, had its deduction under Section 80P disallowed. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating it was a duplicate filing. The assessee contended that the appeal was not a duplicate and sought restoration to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as a duplicate filing, and if not, whether the appeal should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 1796/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2015-16 Jadupur Anchal SKUS Ltd............................................................................Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 [PAN No. AACAJ5707C]

Vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda....................................................……………....……….Respondent ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda I.T. Office, Netaji Market Complex, 1st Floor, Rathbari, Malda- 732101 Appearances by: Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: August 20, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: September 03 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.06.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) , Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 345 days. For this the assessee has filed

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025 an affidavit. Going over the contents of the affidavit the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that JADUPUR ANCHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LIMITED, Assessee, is a Primary agriculture Credit Society registered under the West Bengal State Co-op. Act and doing agriculture promotional activity along with allied business activities including credit finance under the frame work specified by the RBI as well as Register of Co-operative Society as per West Bengal Coop. Society Ltd. This Society comes under the definition of Primary agriculture Credit Society as per section 2 (19) of Income Tax Act 1961 and also justified Banking Regulation act and availed the rebate for the FY-2014-15 under the section 80 P. Subsequently, they filed its return as per statutory liability after audit. Later Income tax authority selected Income Tax Return for the Assessment year 2015-16 for scrutiny. Subsequently, AO decided that the organization would not come under the purview of Sec 80P of income tax act as Primary agriculture Society and not eligible for deduction, Accordingly, he considered net earing as taxable earnings after disallowing claimed deduction Under section 80P. After receiving the assessment order, an appeal was submitted before the competentauthority manually. Further, the case was selected for scrutiny under Section 263 again. Accordingly, Honble Pr. Commissioner after hearing

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025 set-aside the matter and directed to make assessment de-novo after proper verification and examining the provision. Accordingly, notice under sec 142 (1) and subsequently show cause notices were issued and thereafter on an assessment order was passed on 30/09/2021 by assessing total income at Rs. 93,46,090/-

Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by holding that the appeal has been duplicated by the appellant, as for the same assessment order and for the same Assessment Year an appeal has been preferred and form No. 35 has been filed on 02.11.2021

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR in course of argument has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been duplicated by brining reference of the appeal fees paid at the time of filing the appeal of Rs. 1000/- on 2.11.2021 in BSR Code No. 0004329 – Challan Serial No. 09083 whereas the correct one relating to the instant appeal is one paid on 27.01.2018 in BSR Code No. 0011352 – Challan Serial No. 04455 as reflected in 26AS. The prayer of the AR is that there was no duplicate appeal hence the

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025 appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order on merit.

Ld. AR did not raise any objection.

5.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that CIT(A) in its order has held thus:-

For the AY 2015-16, an order of assessment u/s 143(3) rws 263 was passed in the case of the appellant on 30.09 2021 vide DIN & Order No: ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1036079008(1) arriving at a taxable income of Rs. 1,20,98,500/- and a corresponding tax demand of Rs.93,46,090/-. Aggrieved by the addition, the appellant had preferred an appeal and filed Form No.35 on 02.11.2021 vide Acknowledgment Number 781531710021121. 4.2 In respect of this appeal, the appellant had remitted a sum of Rs 1000/- has appeal fees on 02.11.2021 in BSR Code No.0004329. Challan Serial No.09083. However, for the same assessment order passed for the same assessment year, an appeal has been preferred and Form No.35 has been filed on the same date being 02.11.2021. The appeal fees of Rs. 1000/- is claimed to be paid on 02.11.2021 in BSR Code no.0011349 Challan Serial No.03538. This appeal is listed as Appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10072187. In short, the appeal has been duplicated by the appellant. 4.3 The correct appeal listed in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10072187 is being adjudicated separately and while this appeal is not listed in NFAC by providing an appropriate appeal number, this appeal fostered by the appellant, which is a mere duplicate, is infructuous and hence dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the entire set of grounds of appeal are dismissed as the same is without purpose. The Ld. AR by filing No. 35 dated 02.11.2021 has submitted that there was no two appeal rather the present appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 54,85,977/- which was wrongly denied by the AO.

6.

Keeping in view the submission made by the AR and going over the documents filed by the assessee we are inclined to restore the appeal of the

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025 assessee to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order in the present appeal on merit after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee.

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) by set aside and appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merit.

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 3rd September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 03. 09.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Manish Bhoi Deputy Registrar Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025

ITA No.1796/Kol/2025

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →