SIDDAGANGA SHREE VIVIDODDESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH MASKI,MAKSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

ITA 1658/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2019-2012 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation offered by the assessee to be plausible and sufficient cause. Both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent its case before the authorities below. The Tribunal observed that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld it due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and as requested by the assessee's AR, the Tribunal deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was instructed to produce all relevant documents and information. The Tribunal cautioned that further default would not entitle the assessee to any leniency. The substantive grounds regarding additions under Section 69A and interest income were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Siddaganga Shree Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamith, Maski, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20. The appeal was filed with a delay of 55 days, for which the assessee sought condonation. The assessee contended that it could not represent its case before the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessing a total income of Rs. 12,03,77,432/- due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the AO's order, dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance despite multiple notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? - Assessee: Argued that the delay was due to sufficient cause and sought condonation based on the reasons stated in their affidavit. - Revenue: Did not record specific arguments against condonation, but the CIT-DR was present. 2. Whether the entire issues in dispute should be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, given that the assessee could not represent its case before the lower authorities? - Assessee: Submitted that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO in the interest of justice and equity due to the reasons stated in the affidavit. - Revenue: Did not record specific arguments against remission, but the CIT-DR was present. 3. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 11,76,44,781/- and the addition of Rs. 27,32,651/- as interest income were erroneous, considering the assessee's claim that these transactions were already considered under a new PAN? - Assessee: Contended that the additions were unwarranted and erroneous as the transactions were already accounted for under the new PAN (AAYAS7648K) and taxing them again under the old PAN (AAAJS4194B) was incorrect. The assessee also raised grounds regarding the initiation of proceedings under a non-existent PAN and the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 being bad in law due to procedural violations of the e-Assessment Scheme and Section 151A. The assessee also argued that the NFAC failed to adjudicate additional jurisdictional grounds filed on 24.01.2025. - Revenue: Did not record specific arguments on these substantive issues, but the CIT-DR was present.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 151A,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 11.03.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074374035(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Siddaganga Shree Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamith, Maski The Appellant objects to the order of the NFAC on the grounds that: Grounds Raised Tax Effect in INR

1 The impugned orde

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →