DEFENCE ORGAINSATION CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 52(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly determined the advance tax payable and had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to be decided afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Co-operative Credit Society, failed to file its return of income. The assessment was reopened under Section 147, and an ex-parte assessment was completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to non-payment of admitted tax as required by Section 249(4).
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed for non-payment of admitted tax without proper determination of advance tax liability and adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 2392/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Defence Orgainsation Co Op ITO, Ward-52(1), Kolkata Credit Society Ltd. Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAD2556P Appearances: Assessee represented by : (None) Adjournment Petition filed. Department represented by : Dheeraj, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 22.06.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 25.08.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal in the rectified Form No. 36 filed by post on 22.10.2025: "1. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC has erred in law and on facts in interpreting the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in holding that the appeal was not maintainable on account of non-payment of admitted tax. 2. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal as "not admitted" merely on the ground of non- payment of tax under Section 249(4)(a), without appreciating that the
“SYNOPSIS OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL In res: Defence Organisation Co Op Credit Society Ltd ............. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(1) -------------------- Respondent Case No.: ITA 2392/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: AY 2019-20 I. Brief Background 1. The appellant is a Co-operative Credit Society formed by employees of the Ministry of Defence, engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and accepting deposits from them. 2. For AY 2019–20, the return of income could not be filed due to the illness and subsequent demise of the tax professional handling the Society's affairs during the period of COVID. 3. During the period of February 2023 and March 2023, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 for the reason of cash deposit in the account of the appellant. The appellant could not attend to the assessment proceedings and an ex parte assessment was completed under sections 144 and 144B on 01.02.2024, estimating income at 10% of total bank credits and determining taxable income at Rs. 1,71,48,081 and raising the Tax demand of Rs. 1,24,00,438 on the appellant. 4. Against the said assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. II. Compliance with Tax Payment before Filing Appeal 5. Since the appellant is a Co-operative Credit Society providing the credit facilities to its members, the appellant was claiming deduction u/s 80P in the years prior to the relevant Assessment Year. 6. Before filing the appeal, the appellant Computed its income as per audited Income & Expenditure Account o which showed the surplus of Rs. 10,31,013 Since the deduction u/s 80P could not be claimed due to the non-filing of o return of Income and restriction placed by section 80AC, appellant paid tax of Rs. 3,18,553 and interest of Rs. 3,75,987, aggregating to Rs. 7,04,540 on 27.02.2024. 7. Thus, the entire tax liability as per the appellant's admitted computation stood discharged before filing the appeal.
“4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee had sought adjournment before the Bench but the
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026