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

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

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. 2. 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.
Burdwan Satgachia Janakalyan Society; A.Y. 2012-13

Summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued on 29.11.2019, which were also not complied with. Since, the assessee filed the ITR on 07.09.2019, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 13.12.2019. Finally, on the basis of information available with the ld.
AO, the ld. AO treated the amount deposited by the assessee aggregating to ₹68,10,000/- comprising
₹
55,10,000/- cash deposited and 13,00,000/- time deposit during the year as unexplained money thereby making an addition of ₹68,10,000/- made to the income of the assessee without allowing any deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The ld. AO added the entire amount of deposit into the bank account of ₹68,10,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act comprising ₹55,10,000/- cash deposited by the assessee over the period of 12 months as well as time deposits made of ₹13,00,000/-.
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 Burdwan Satgachia Janakalyan Society; A.Y. 2012-13

observe that although the assessee has indeed made submissions during appellate proceedings, there is no real advancement in this litigation, as there is a singular lack of information on record as per Income Tax Act which would enable either the AO or this office, to support the stand of the assessee, when, pray, the stand of the assessee itself is not known ! And, above all, the assessee has stated that it was the AO who should have issued notices to the depositors and that, there was no burden on the assessee itself to comply with the machinery provisions of Income Tax Act!
Accordingly, the grounds are dismissed.”
3.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the society is a registered co- operative society and has been carrying on these activities as per the memorandum of association (by laws), copy of which is available at page no. 7 to 18 of the Paper Book. We find that the society has been accepting deposits from its members and also advancing money to its members thereby collecting interest and paying interest as well. During the year, we note from the income and expenditure account that the assessee society has incurred a loss of ₹4,26,596/-, whereas the ld. AO has added the entire deposits u/s 69A of the Act amounting to ₹68,10,000/- without allowing any deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of income of the society Act on the ground that the society has not furnished any return of income during the year.
We have unable to understand as to how the entire deposits inot the bank accounts and time deposit could be added as income. Further in our opinion, it is not necessary for the co-operative society to file a return of income to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act. We Note that there is loss of the assessee society for impugned year even then no addition is called for as there is loss of ₹4,26,596/-. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangha
Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 614/Bang/2021 dated 13.06.2022, wherein the co-ordinate bench has held as under:-
Burdwan Satgachia Janakalyan Society; A.Y. 2012-13

“8. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee that section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI "A" of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC of the Act, as we have already seen, contemplates denial of deduction in respect of certain provisions of Chapter VI "A" of the Act, if a return of income is not filed by an assessee. Those provisions, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee, do not apply to the claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue authorities were not justified in not entertaining the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P of the Act as made by the assessee. Since neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have examined the other conditions for allowing deduction under section 80P of the Act, I deem it fit and proper to remand the issue of the assessee's eligibility to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act, in the sense with regard to the quantum of deduction and also with regard to the other conditions for allowing deduction under section 80P of the Act, for examining afresh by the AO. I therefore allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.”
3.3. Similarly, in the case of Basudebpur Uttarbarh Samabay Krishi
Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1263/KOL/2024 vide order dated 29.01.2025, wherein it has held as under:-
“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