BARARANKUA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), KOLKATA, PASCHIM MEDNIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited and withdrew substantial cash from co-operative banks. Despite a notice under Section 148 and subsequent reminders, the assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2018-19 or respond to the notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment and confirmation by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and first appellate orders, passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), -NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 12.04.2024 for AY 2018-19.
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bararankua Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,91,88,060/- maintained with Balageria Central Co-operative Bank ltd. and made withdrawal of Rs. 2,96,22,482/- in cash from bank account maintained with Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. After obtaining the necessary approval of competent authority, notice u/s 148 issued to the assessee on 28.03.2022 and the assessee was requested to file his income tax return within 30 days. The assessee has not filed income tax return for AY 2018-19 neither voluntary u/s 139(1) nor in response to notice u/s 148. Further letter dated 10.11.2022 as per AU-1 and letter from NAFAC dated 25.01.2023 also issued requesting response from the assessee but the assessee has failed to submit the reply of those notices.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration as the order passed by both the lower authorities are an ex-parte order. The prayer of the assessee is that the assessee has to give an opportunity for the interest of justice.
The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of AO .
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the lower authorities and find that the assessment as well as order of Ld. CIT(A) was passed an ex-parte order. The AO has clearly held that since there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee, the assessment was done on the basis of material available on record. Before us the prayer of the assessee is to remit the appeal back to the file of AO for fresh consideration by affording an opportunity to the assessee. Considering the submission made by the assessee, going over the order passed by the Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bararankua Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. lower authorities for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the AO.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th July, 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 18th July, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Bararankua Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Bararankua Balisai, Contai, Purba Medinipur-721423 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)
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 →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026