SAI SHETKARI BAHU KRISHU UPAJ UTPADAN VIPNAN WA PRAKRIYA SANSTHA MARYADIT,GONDIA vs. ITO WARD-1 GONDIA, GONDIA

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant respectfully prefers this appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 1448 dated 21.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by rejecting the request for condonation of delay without any speaking order and appreciating the reasonable cause stated by the appellant and without adopting the liberal approach required while dealing with matters relating to condonation of delay.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO failed to appreciate that the no response was filed in assessment proceeding due to covid-19 period and inability to properly comply with the proceedings occurred due to unavoidable circumstances as the President and signing authority of the appellant society was under medical treatment and bed rest during the relevant period and his family members were also affected by Covid-19. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment under section 144 read with section 144B and disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) amounting to Rs.40,76,128/- merely on account of alleged non-compliance during the assessment proceedings during the covid-19 period.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of purchasing of paddy(DHAN) agricultural produce of its members on behalf of federation as sub-agent and the income (commission) derived from such activity is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the deduction under section 80P is a statutory benefit granted to co-operative societies engaged in specified activities and the same cannot be denied merely on account of alleged non-compliance during the assessment proceedings without examining the eligibility of the appellant on merits.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in the course of assessment framed under section 144 without making any independent inquiry or 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed under section 144 read with section 144B is contrary to the scheme of faceless assessment as prescribed under the Income-tax Act, which mandates fair opportunity of being heard.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was solely on the ground of alleged non-compliance and without any finding or material evidence that the appellant was not eligible for deduction under section 80P.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P without bringing any material on record to demonstrate that the activities of the appellant fall outside the scope of section 80P(2)(a)(iii).

The CIT(A), (NFAC), Delhi erred in not considering the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the assessee is a cooperative society doing business since last so many years with its members and fulfills all the conditions for the deduction eligible U/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as well as the deduction U/s 80P was regularly allowed to the society. Therefore, the order passed is illegal, invalid, and bad in law.

The appellant, therefore, prays that the appeal may be admitted and orders may be passed rendering justice to the appellant.

Each of the grounds mentioned hereinabove is independent and without prejudice to one another.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. Prayer: In the interest of the justice, it is therefore humbly requested that the said grounds of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated and the Hon'ble Tribunal may decide the matter on merits after granting the Appellant an opportunity to be heard.

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant respectfully prefers this appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order U/s. 250 r.w.s 270A dated 28/01/2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Act dated 15/03/2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.6,34,320 which is arbitrary, unjustified and liable to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below erred in levying penalty under section 270A for underreporting of income merely on account of disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in assessment order without establishing whether the appellant had under-reported its income within the meaning of section 270A of the Act and without affording proper opportunity of being heard in this matter. 4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by rejecting the request for condonation of delay without any speaking order and appreciating the reasonable cause stated by the appellant and without adopting the liberal approach required while dealing with matters relating to condonation of delay. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO failed to appreciate that the no response was filed in assessment proceeding due to covid-19 period and inability to properly comply with the proceedings occurred due to unavoidable circumstances as the President and signing authority of the appellant society was under medical treatment and bed rest during the relevant period and his family members were also affected by Covid-19. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the deduction under section 80P is a statutory benefit granted to co-operative societies engaged in specified activities and the same cannot be denied merely on account of alleged non-compliance during the assessment proceedings without examining the eligibility of the appellant on merits. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of purchasing of paddy(dhan) agricultural produce of its members on behalf of federation as sub-agent and the income (commission) derived from such activity is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and mere rejection of such claim by the learned CIT(A)NFAC cannot automatically result in imposition of penalty under section 270A. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the explanation furnished by the appellant during the penalty proceedings without properly appreciating the factual circumstances of the case and without demonstrating that the claim made by the appellant was false or malafide. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed under section 270A is contrary to the scheme of faceless assessment as prescribed under the Income-tax Act, which mandates fair opportunity of being heard in the interest of natural justice. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P without bringing any material on record to demonstrate that the activities of the appellant fall outside the scope of section 80P(2)(a)(iii). 11. The CIT(A), (NFAC), Delhi erred in not considering the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the assessee is a cooperative society doing business regularly for its members and fulfills all the conditions for the deduction eligible U/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as well as the deduction U/s 80P was allowed to the society in past. Therefore, the order passed is illegal, invalid, and bad in law. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned authorities below failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment proceedings and require independent satisfaction regarding the existence of under- reported income which has not been established in the present case. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are arbitrary, mechanical and passed without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore liable to be set aside. 14. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgements including: a) CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that mere disallowance of a claim or an addition made in the assessment order does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. b) The Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC) held that penalties cannot be imposed for bona fide or technical breaches. Therefore, the penalty imposed on such grounds is unwarranted and liable to be set aside. 15. That the penalty levied is arbitrary, cxcessive, based on suspicion, surmise and conjecture, and therefore, liable to be deleted. 16. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. 17. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. Prayer: In the interest of the justice, it is therefore humbly requested that the said grounds of appeal may kindly be admitted and adjudicated and the Hon'ble Tribunal may decide the matter on merits after granting the Appellant an opportunity to be heard.

ITA No. 290/NAG/2026 is against the challenging of disallowance

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a co-operative society and assessment for the year 2020-21 concluded as best judgement assessment u/s 144 r.ws. 144B of the Act due to non- submission of any reply by the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) at Rs. 40,76,128/- and subsequently levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act at Rs. 6,34,320/- I also observe that both the impugned orders are non-speaking and just in few lines. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal and therefore the impugned orders are non speaking orders and are not in accordance with section 250(6) of the Act.

I also observe that the notices issued by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for carrying out the assessment proceedings are during the Covid 19 Pandemic period as the notices have been issued from 29.06.2021 till 10.03.2022. Considering this fact and also in the larger interest of justice, I find that the assessee could not get fair opportunity of hearing before Ld. AO and therefore restore all the issues raised on quantum addition raised in ITA No. 290/NAG/2026 to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo adjudication and decide in accordance with law. 6. As regards the issue of penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act raised in ITA No. 297/NAG/2026, the same being consequential and depending on the quantum addition is also restored to the file of Ld. JAO.

Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.