VIVIDODDHESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT,ALAGAWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BELAGAVI

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

“1. The impugned order of the Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax is liable to set aside in so far as the same is incorrect, irregular, improper, unlawful and opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. Because, the learned lower authorities failed to appreciate that the appellant is a primary agricultural co-operative credit society and is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned lower authorities denied to allow deduction u/s 80P as the return of income has not been filed by the appellant within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have invoked the provisions of section 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the facts of the case and have dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to make the written submission in support of the grounds of appeal. 4. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest levied by the lower authorities

3 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and Fees u/s 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for default in furnishing return of income which is against law and facts of the case. 5. The appellant craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

“Additional Ground No. 1: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio, illegal, and without jurisdiction, as the mandatory jurisdictional notice under Section 148 dated 06.04.2022 was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year 2018-19, and the prior sanction for such issuance was accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (PCIT) Hubli on 05.04.2022, instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which is a clear violation of the statutory mandate prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

4 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

has deposited cash of Rs.2,99,86,066/- in its bank account maintained with Belgaum District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., however, failed to furnish sources of above cash deposit by furnishing return of income, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 06.04.2022. The assessee furnished return in response to above notice by declaring income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.15,75,509/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices u/s 144 of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.03.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,75,509/- as against the income of Rs.Nil returned by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.15,75,509/- being

5 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act on account of section 80AC of the IT Act, since the original return of income was not furnished by the assessee within the prescribed time limit u/s 139 of the IT Act. 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the material available on record, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional ground which is purely legal in nature. In this regard, the

6 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

assessee also filed an affidavit stating that the omission to raise this additional ground before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as well as in original memo of appeal filed before this Tribunal was completely inadvertent, bona-fide and due to oversight at the time of initial drafting. After considering the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, we deem it appropriate to admit this additional ground, since it goes to the root of the matter. 9. In this regard, we find that the above legal ground was not considered by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since it could not be raised before him. Apart from above, we also find that the assessee has also raised ground no.3 wherein it has been claimed that the assessee has not furnished any explanation in support of grounds of appeal since notices of hearing were not known to the assessee and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the basis of statement of facts, grounds of appeal and material available on record decided the appeal against the assessee.

7 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

8 ITA No.250/PAN/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 18th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.19 11:32:27 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.