PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANDAVESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , DURGAPUR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the available records, allowed the appeal of the assessee to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they were pursuing an alternative remedy by filing an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Pr. CIT (Asansol) for condonation of delay and permission to claim deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the competent authority if their petition under Section 119(2)(b) was not accepted. The specific issue regarding the merits of the disallowance under Section 80P was not decided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., is a cooperative society providing credit facilities. For Assessment Year 2018-19, the assessee did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after noting cash deposits of Rs. 26,41,000/- and withdrawals of Rs. 3,53,23,139/-. The assessee subsequently filed necessary documents and claimed deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) (Rs. 11,58,311/-) and Section 80P(2)(d) (Rs. 33,19,937/-) from its net profit of Rs. 44,78,248/-. The AO disallowed the entire claimed deduction of Rs. 44,78,248/- due to the failure to file the return of income under Section 139(1). The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, upholding the AO's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal has to decide on the merits of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee has pursued an alternative remedy. The assessee's primary contention, as presented by the AR, was that an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, along with a petition for condonation of delay in filing the return and audited report, had been filed before the Pr. CIT (Asansol). The assessee argued that since they were pursuing this alternative remedy, the appeal before the Tribunal should be treated as not pressed, with a request to reserve liberty to file a fresh appeal if the petition was not accepted. The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, did not raise significant objections to this prayer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 139(1),Section 119(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.....Appellant Pandaveswar Colliery, PO – Pandaveswar, W.B-713346. [PAN: AADAP1289N] vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Abhijit Banerjee, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 20, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 1st, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 13.12.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee has not filed return of income for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.26,41,000/- and also shown cash withdrawals of Rs.3,53,23,139/- in current account maintained with The Burdwan Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee submitted necessary Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd documents. In the computation of income, the assessee has shown net profit after adjudgment of depreciation at Rs.44,78,248/- and out of the net profit of Rs.44,78,248/-, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.11,58,311/- and deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) being interest/dividend from investment in other cooperative society at Rs.33,19,937/-. As the assessee failed to filed return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed totalling to Rs.44,78,248/- (Rs.33,19,937/- + 11,58,311/-) as deduction claimed by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not succeed and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, the ld. AR fairly submitted that the assessee had already filed application u/s 119(2)(b) before the ld. Pr. CIT(Asansol) along with petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and audited report so that the assessee may be allowed to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act. It is, therefore, prayed before the Bench that the appeal may be treated as not pressed since the assessee is pursuing an alternative remedy before the competent authority. The ld. AR requested that liberty may be reserved to file a fresh appeal if the petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is not accepted.
On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise much objection of the above prayer of the ld. AR.
We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and also considering the submissions of the ld. AR Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd before us, allow the appeal of the assessee to be dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh appeal before the competent authority, in case the petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is not accepted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Kolkata, the 1st September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 01.09.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026