PUNCHA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ACIT, WARD 3(1), , BANKURA

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2021-22 dated 29/01/2025.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as un- der:

For that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commis- sioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts as well as in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. Rs. 2,49,683/-, being the depreciation claimed, as disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Per- son being a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. It filed its return of in- come on 09.03.2022, declaring total income as Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued, but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 23.04.2021 by assessing the total income of ₹95,82,765/- after making disallowances of ₹40,94,242/-, ₹52,38,840/- and ₹2,49,683/- under section 80P, for non- verification of expenses and disallowance of depreciation on account of addition to fixed assets respectively. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued for hearing and it was inferred that the assessee has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in the course of the appeal and the findings of the AO were confirmed.

Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed the appeal before us.

We have perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is submitted in the Grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. A perusal of the appeal order of the Ld. CIT (A) shows that during the ap- pellate proceedings, the assessee was given adequate opportunity of hear- ing but there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT (A) and no docu- ments had been produced before the ld. CIT (A). We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). While in the assessment disallowance and addition have been made on account of an adequate evidence, the appeal has also been decided ex parte, primarily on account of non-prosecution on behalf of the assessee.

Therefore, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent its case properly before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The assessee shall not seek any unnecessary ad- journments. The Grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.