KDSPBMMSI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,KAURR vs. ITO, KAURR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal in the quantum assessment had been set aside by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in ITA No.363 & 364/Chny/2026 dated 20.03.2026, and the matter was restored for de novo consideration before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty order under consideration also needs to be decided along with the quantum proceedings. In view of these facts, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the grounds raised but allowed the appeal based on the procedural aspect of the quantum appeal being restored. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the restoration of the quantum appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, KDSPBMMSI Co-Op Society Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not considering their reply indicating an appeal had been filed before the ITAT against the reassessment order, and that they had filed an e-response on 20/01/2026 mentioning this. The assessee further argued that the impugned order should be set aside and decided along with the quantum appeal, as the ITAT, Chennai, in ITA No.363/Chny/2026 dated 20/03/2026, had remitted the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the assessee's reply indicating the filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the First Appeal Order concerning the underlying Reassessment Order, thereby violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness? (Question of mixed law and fact). 2. Whether the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in observing that the Appellant did not file a reply to the Appellate Hearing Notices, despite the Appellant filing an E-Response on 20/01/2026, ten days prior to the impugned order, which mentioned the filing of an appeal against the Reassessment Order? (Question of mixed law and fact). 3. Whether the Impugned Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside to be decided along with the Quantum Appeal, given that the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai, vide its Order in ITA No.363/Chny/2026 dated 20/03/2026, remitted the quantum appeal back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) failed to consider the reply regarding the appeal filed before the ITAT. - The CIT(A) wrongly observed that no reply was filed, despite an e-response being submitted. - The matter should be decided along with the quantum appeal, which has been remitted back to the CIT(A) by the ITAT. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के., उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2250/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 KDSPBMMSI Co-Op Society Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer, No.5, Vinayagar Complex, Sundarambal Ward-1, Nagar, New Byepass Road, Karur. Velayuthampalayam S.O, Karur, Tamil Nadu-639 117. [PAN: AAAJK0894J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Bhupendran, Advocate, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC, (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi dated 30.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2016-17.
GROUDS OF APPEAL 1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the reply filed by the Appellant indicating the filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT against the First Appeal Order against underlying Reassessment Order. 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering that the Appellant, by filing E-Response on 20/01/2026, that is ten days before passing the Impugned
ITA No.2250/Chny/2026 (2016-17) KDSPBMMSI Coop Society Ltd. Order, mentioning that an appeal was filed against the Reassessment Order and in observing that the Appellant did not file reply to the Appellate Hearing Notices. 4) Without prejudice, the Impugned Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside to be decided along with the Quantum Appeal, as the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai vide its Order in ITA No.363/Chny/2026 dated 20/03/2026 remitted the appeal back to the file of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). And, for other reasons that may be adduced later, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal may be admitted, duly considered and justice be rendered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s appeal in quantum assessment has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench vide ITA No.363 & 364/Chny/2026 vide order dated 20.03.2026. Copy of the order submitted before us and the same has been considered. As the matter on quantum has already been restored back for de novo consideration before the Ld. CIT(A), penalty order under consideration also needs to be decided along with the quantum proceedings as mentioned (supra). In view of these, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order be pronounced on the 22nd day of September 2026, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजा जॉजा के.) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 22nd September 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR Digitally signed 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF K BABU by K BABU Date: 2026.09.28 10:34:16 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
