BURDWAN SATGACHIA JANAKALYAN SOCIETY,,MEMARI, BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, BURDWAN

PDF

ITA 1854/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 December 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)6 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a co-operative society, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2012-13, despite having made significant cash and time deposits aggregating to ₹68,10,000/-. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, added the entire deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A, and denied deduction under Section 80P. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, citing non-compliance with various notices.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee society had incurred a loss for the year and held that it is not mandatory for a co-operative society to file a return of income to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of the entire deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A was incorrect and directed its deletion.

Key Issues

Whether deposits made by a co-operative society can be added as unexplained money under Section 69A, and whether a co-operative society must file an Income Tax Return to claim a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

Sections Cited

147, 148, 133(6), 271(1)(b), 131, 143(2), 69A, 80P, 142(1), 80A(5), 80AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.12.2024 for the AY 2012-13.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 172 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of adjudication.

3.1. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that several notices were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and summons u/s 131 of the Act were complied with and therefore, the ld. AO rightly made the addition u/s 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

“I have carefully gone through the submissions of the assessee. The assessee has not made clear as to what kind of society it is, why it is collecting deposits from the members, what use the deposits are being put to, and, why a part of deposits is being refunded! The assessee assumes that just being a Society, it gets exemption from taxation. And, if that is so, it has not mentioned the Sections of IT Act under which all types of Societies are exempt! For the sake of argument, the assessee has not mentioned that it is a housing society etc etc and that, it is claiming exemption due to the principle of mutuality etc etc ! Even then, it is obligatory to file ITRs regularly. However, the assessee has not filed ITR. Any exemption is NOT automatic. An ITR has to be filed, books are to be maintained, audit has to be done, P & L Account or I & E accounts with B/S etc, have to be prepared and then, in the ITR so filed, exemption has to be claimed, if at all. No such luck here! In such a situation, I am constrained to “05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has challenged the enhancement of income made by the ld. CIT (A) on account of taxable profit of ₹48,70,648/- which was in fact the loss incurred by the assessee during the year as is apparent from the audited profit nd loss account while the additions made by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings were deleted by the ld. CIT (A). The Revenue is not in appeal before us against the order of ld CIT(A)deleting the addituions and only the assessee is in appeal challenging the enhancement of income by ₹48,70,648/-. On perusal of the Profit and Loss account filed before us a copy of which is also available before the ld. CIT (A), we note that during the instant financial year, the assessee incurred loss of ₹48,70,648/- from the operation. A copy of the said profit and loss account is available in the paper book at page 6 and 7. We further note that the assessee is a co-operative society who has been engaged in the business of banking and providing facility to its members and the accounts were statutorily audited by the Government cooperative auditors appointed by The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Co-operation department, Government of West Bengal, We note that the assessee has duly filed the Audit Report dated 20.01.2020 including audited profit and loss account with no adverse finding. Therefore, this is factual mistake on the part of the ld. CIT (A) in taking the amount of such loss as taxable profit during the year which in our opinion needs to be corrected. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made by enhancement.