SHYAMNAGAR ANCHAL SKUS LTD.,,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), , BANKURA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity for hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, did not file its return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and added a significant sum as unexplained cash and disallowed a deduction claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an effective opportunity of hearing and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 29-October-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 12.09.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2022. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 125 days. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) but did not file its return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') had information that huge transactions aggregating to ₹ 1,27,63,200/- were made during the relevant financial year. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income as a Cooperative Society showing NIL income. Statutory notices were issued and after considering the response of the assessee, the Ld. AO added an amount of ₹1,27,63,200/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash and another sum of ₹20,10,454/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act claimed by the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026