SATUPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 27(3), , HALDIA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
28.12.25 of the CIT(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2022 and in response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income. As the assessee did not file return on due date, the Assessing
Officer denied the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.3,62,084/- and penalty proceedings u/s 270A was also initiated.
Satupur Samabay Unnayan Samity Ltd

2
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer denied the deduction u/s 80P claimed by the Assessing Officer only due to non-submission relevant documents or reply in the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. The ld. AR also submits that the assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that they have collected cash deposits from farmers and deposited the cash in Mugberia Central Co-op Bank Ltd. and also withdrew cash from the same bank account to give loans to the farmers but the same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer only in the absence of production of supporting documents/evidences. He therefore prayed for one more opportunity by restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after producing relevant documents/evidences.
5. The ld. DR did not raise any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
6. After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perusing the orders of the lower authorities, it appears to us that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to submit supporting documentary evidence although date of compliance was 09.03.2023 and also the cash transactions were not verified due to failure for submitting relevant documents/evidences. Under the circumstances and considering the request of the ld. AR and in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing
Officer for re-examination after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to pass a de novo order after considering documentary
Satupur Samabay Unnayan Samity Ltd

3
evidences or explanations submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to positively cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting relevant documentary evidences to substantiate its claim.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 12th December, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 12.12.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order