MALDA WHOLESALE CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, MALDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2017-18

Malda Wholesale Consumers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-operative Society Ltd., Ward 3(1), Malda, Netaji Subhas Road, English I.T. Office, Netaji Market Bazar, Malda - 732101 Complex, First Floor, [PAN: AAALM0022G] Rath Bari, Malda – 732101 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sh. N.C. Mondal, AR Revenue by : Sh. Praveen Kishore, CIT (DR) Sh. Shallong Yaden, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 11.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

All these five appeals filed by the same assessee against the separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] are as under:

2 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society Assessment Date of DIN & Order No. Amount Year order of involved CIT(A) 2013-14 15.05.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 10,39,89,930/- 25-26/1076215693(1) 2014-15 15.05.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 12,98,58,924/- 25-26/1076215110(1) 2015-16 15.05.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 2,46,78,292/- 25-26/1076218130(1) 2016-17 15.05.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 32,84,850/- 25-26/1076218490(1) 2017-18 15.05.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 51,34,800/- 25-26/1076218776(1) The issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal are as under:

“1. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the legal validity of reopening of the assessment without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and void ab initio. 3. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified without adjudicating whether there existed any material evidence on record to prove that the purchases were bogus before forming opinion 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year 2013-14 without establishing that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the pan of the appellant to disclose fully

3 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of A.Y. 2013-14. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and may kindly be set aside. 5. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless. Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by adjudicating that no cross-examination of the deponents was necessary relying on the part of the decision dated 14.06.2022 of the jurisdictional High Court, Le., Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT -vs- Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) but capriciously remained aloof to cite the immediate next para of the said order and thereby natural justice was denied to the appellant. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and additions made thereon may kindly be deleted. 6. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs 10,36,89,930/-without taking into consideration the written submission and documents on records and without establishing that the purchases were bogus though addition u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was categorically deleted by him. 7. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs. 10,36,89,930/without specifically mentioning under which section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,36,89,930/- is disallowable. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow genuine purchase of Rs. 10,36,89,930/- without verifying the purchase bills issue by the supplier, corresponding sales made, payments details, bank statement and other documents; and written submission made before him by the appellant as he has assumed the jurisdiction of the Ld. Assessing officer. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by not adjudicating that proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated without any basis and requires to be dropped. 10. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 2.1 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1448/Kol/2025:

4 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society “1. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2014-15 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the legal validity of reopening of the assessment without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and void ab initio. 3. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified without adjudicating whether there existed any material evidence on record to prove that the purchases were bogus before forming opinion 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year 2014-15 without establishing that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the pan of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of A.Y. 2014-15. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and may kindly be set aside. 5. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless. Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by adjudicating that no cross-examination of the deponents was necessary relying on the part of the decision dated 14.06.2022 of the jurisdictional High Court, Le., Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT -vs- Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) but capriciously remained aloof to cite the immediate next para of the said order and thereby natural justice was denied to the appellant. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and additions made thereon may kindly be deleted. 6. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs 12,98,58,624/-without taking into consideration the written submission and documents on records and without establishing that the purchases were bogus though addition u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was categorically deleted by him. 7. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld.

5 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society A.O. to disallow Rs. 12,98,58,624/-without specifically mentioning under which section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,98,58,624/-is disallowable. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow genuine purchase of Rs. 12,98,58,624/- without verifying the purchase bills issue by the supplier, corresponding sales made, payments details, bank statement and other documents; and written submission made before him by the appellant as he has assumed the jurisdiction of the Ld. Assessing officer. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by not adjudicating that proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated without any basis and requires to be dropped. 10. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 2.3 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1449/Kol/2025:

“1. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2015-16 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the legal validity of reopening of the assessment without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and void ab initio. 3. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified without adjudicating whether there existed any material evidence on record to prove that the purchases were bogus before forming opinion 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year 2014-15 without establishing that income chargeable to tax has escaped

6 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society assessment by reason of failure on the pan of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of A.Y. 2015-16. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and may kindly be set aside. 5. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless. Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by adjudicating that no cross-examination of the deponents was necessary relying on the part of the decision dated 14.06.2022 of the jurisdictional High Court, Le., Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT -vs- Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) but capriciously remained aloof to cite the immediate next para of the said order and thereby natural justice was denied to the appellant. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and additions made thereon may kindly be deleted. 6. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs 2,46,78,292/-without taking into consideration the written submission and documents on records and without establishing that the purchases were bogus though addition u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was categorically deleted by him. 7. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs. 2,46,78,292/-without specifically mentioning under which section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,46,78,292/-is disallowable. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow genuine purchase of Rs. 2,46,78,292/- without verifying the purchase bills issue by the supplier, corresponding sales made, payments details, bank statement and other documents; and written submission made before him by the appellant as he has assumed the jurisdiction of the Ld. Assessing officer. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by not adjudicating that proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated without any basis and requires to be dropped. 10. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 2.4 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1450/Kol/2025:

7 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society “1. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2016-17 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the legal validity of reopening of the assessment without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and void ab initio. 3. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified without adjudicating whether there existed any material evidence on record to prove that the purchases were bogus before forming opinion 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless. Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by adjudicating that no cross-examination of the deponents was necessary relying on the part of the decision dated 14.06.2022 of the jurisdictional High Court, Le., Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT -vs- Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) but capriciously remained aloof to cite the immediate next para of the said order and thereby natural justice was denied to the appellant. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and additions made thereon may kindly be deleted. 5. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs 32,84,850/-without taking into consideration the written submission and documents on records and without establishing that the purchases were bogus though addition u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was categorically deleted by him. 6. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs. 32,84,850/-without specifically mentioning under which section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 32,84,850/- is disallowable. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow genuine purchase of Rs. 32,84,850/- without verifying the purchase bills issue by the supplier, corresponding sales made, payments details, bank statement and other documents; and written submission made before him by the appellant as he has assumed the jurisdiction of the Ld. Assessing officer.

8 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by not adjudicating that proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated without any basis and requires to be dropped. 9. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 2.5 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1451/Kol/2025:

“1. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2017-18 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and requires to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in confirming the legal validity of reopening of the assessment without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and void ab initio. 3. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified without adjudicating whether there existed any material evidence on record to prove that the purchases were bogus before forming opinion 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless. Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by adjudicating that no cross-examination of the deponents was necessary relying on the part of the decision dated 14.06.2022 of the jurisdictional High Court, Le., Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT -vs- Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) but capriciously remained aloof to cite the immediate next para of the said order and thereby natural justice was denied to the appellant. As such, the assessment may please be held as bad in law and additions made thereon may kindly be deleted. 5. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs 51,34,800/-without taking into consideration the written submission and documents on records and without establishing that the purchases were bogus though addition u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was categorically deleted by him.

9 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society 6. THAT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow Rs. 51,34,800/- without specifically mentioning under which section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 51,34,800/- is disallowable. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified in directing the Ld. A.O. to disallow genuine purchase of Rs. 51,34,800/- without verifying the purchase bills issue by the supplier, corresponding sales made, payments details, bank statement and other documents; and written submission made before him by the appellant as he has assumed the jurisdiction of the Ld. Assessing officer. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in law and not justified by not adjudicating that proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated without any basis and requires to be dropped. 9. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 3. On going through the above grounds of appeal, we noted that the issues involved are identical for all these years except the difference in figures shown in the grounds of appeal and all the appeals were heard together. Accordingly, we are passing a common order for all the years.

10 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society Floor, Kolkata – 700070. During the course of statement recorded of Shri Manoj Kumar Rameka. He stated that he is providing bogus bills to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Behani as and when required through his following four entities:

(i) Shri Shyam Trading

(ii) Naba Durga Trading Company

(iii) RidhhiSiddhi Enterprises

(iv) Bhagwati Traders

11 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society examined the documents in depth. We also observe that there is deficiency to prove the genuineness of the transactions carried out by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel strongly supported that the uniforms forms were directly collected by the concerned schools Teachers/Headmaster/Principal as per their requisition and number of students studying in the particulars schools, and distributed among the children of the concerned schools. therefore, there is no requirement to maintain the stock register by the society and he also referred to paper book, page no. 553 in Volume-III for A.Y. 2013-14 and stated that entire 5100/- uniform were distributed among the different schools, page number 556, 4300 uninforms, page number 558, 3700 uniforms, page number 559, 3500 uniform, page number 562, 4800 uninform, etc.

12 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and assessee was given ample opportunities to file the documents but it did not do so.

13 ITA Nos. 1447 to 1451/KOL/2025 Malda Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society Assessing Officer (JAO) and substantiate its case with cogent documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

Order pronounced on 13.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 13.05.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches