Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal arises from an order of the CIT(A) upholding the Assessing Officer's action of adding Rs. 47,65,290.00 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, not a cooperative bank. The appeal was filed with a significant delay, which was condoned by the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) decided the issues ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to appear. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A when the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. Whether the ex-parte assessment orders were justified.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 271AAC, 270A, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA
Chaktentul S K U Ltd., ChaktentulRondiha, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman – 713210, West Bengal [PAN: AAGFC8683B] ……..…...……………....Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Amit Agarwal, Adv. Department represented by : Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2025 O R D E R
1. This appeal arises from order dated 22.01.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].
2. The Registry of ITAT has informed that this appeal is delayed by 464 days by the assessee for whichthe assessee has filed the condonation petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay as under:
The Appellant could not file the instant appeal before 28-02-2024 and in the process there is delay of 403 days in filing the instant appeal. The main reason is the appellant was suffering from prolonged illness and was under medical supervision. The appellant is attaching a copy of medical certificate issued by the doctor in this respect.
That the limitation period prescribed in Income Tax Act, 1961 for filing the Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Income Tax Officer is 60 days from the date of the receipt of the impugned order.
That it is stated and submitted that the delay of aforesaid in filing the aforesaid Memo of Appeal was not intentional and it is desirable that the same may be condoned.
4. That if the instant petition for limitation is not admitted and condoned by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, the interest of the Appellant shall be highly prejudiced.
5. That this Appeal is being filed Bonafede and in the interest of justice. It is therefore prayed this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, may graciously be pleased to admit this petition of the Appellant and condone the delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal.” 3 Considering the reasons mentioned in the said petition for condonation of the delay, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
4 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by added of Rs 47,65,290.00/- u/s section 69A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money although the assessee is not a Co-operative bank, but a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by added Rs.47,65,290.00/- u/s 69A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained and treated as unexplained money.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by adding Commission/ Brokerage income of Rs. 1,32,820.00/- in absence of any replies/submissions on commission/brokerage with evidences on demand of Assessing officer.
That passing of 'BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT order is bad in law as there has been reasonable cause for non-compliance of notice by the appellant.
5. That appellant has all the relevant documents to prove the source of cash deposit in bank u/s 69A of The Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. That appellant has all relevant documents which will be submitted to prove in appeal hearing.
That the Penalty Proceeding u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax 1961, will not be initiated as there is no unaccounted Income as all books of accounts Chaktentul S K U Ltd. has been maintained and the accounts has been audited by Co-operative Auditor, Government of West Bengal.
That the Penalty Proceeding u/s 270A of the Income Tax 1961, will not be initiated as there was no under reporting of Assessee's Income as the accounts has been audited by Co-operative Auditor Government of West Bengal.
That the Penalty Proceeding u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax 1961, may be initiated with least amount minimum penalty for failure to comply as the Assessee acknowledge and deeply apologize for non-compliance of Income Tax department letter.
That the appellant craves leave to supplement, amend, add, substitute, cancel, delete or otherwise modify all or any of the grounds herein before or at the time of hearing, if necessary, so arises.”
At the outset, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer decided the issues exparte when the assessee failed to appear on various opportunities granted by the respective authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In result, appeal of the assesseeis partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12.09.2025