PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY R HALLARE ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

ITA 3112/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and considering the assessee's submission that it could not represent its case before the authorities below, it was fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and must produce all relevant documents, records, information, and evidence. The Tribunal made it clear that in case of further default, the assessee would not be entitled to any leniency. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society R Hallare, Mysore, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 16.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 22.02.2024 under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessing total income at Rs. 58,89,929/-. The AO held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for deposits of Rs. 57,61,033/- in its bank account and treated interest income of Rs. 1,28,896/- as undisclosed income. The CIT(A)/NFAC also passed an ex-parte order, noting that the assessee did not furnish evidence despite five opportunities, concluding the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer, considering it could not represent itself before the lower authorities. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, being a primary agricultural credit cooperative society in a remote area, could not effectively represent its case before the lower authorities. It undertakes to comply with notices and submit all relevant documents, including KYC of members from whom deposits were accepted. It prays for one more opportunity before the AO to substantiate its claim. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the grant of a fresh opportunity. However, the revenue was represented by Sri Pradeep S., Addl. CIT-DR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA C. Ramesh, A.R
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081828195(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:- Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society R Hallare, Mysore 3. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent its case before both the authorities below. O

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 →