JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee failed to provide details, as evidence of e-filing a reply was presented. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a primary agricultural credit society, claimed deductions under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer made additions for disallowable expenses and provisions already added by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 49,23,000 under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetization, despite the assessee providing details.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the addition under Section 69A without considering the assessee's submitted explanations and evidence regarding demonetization cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT570 citing37 ITR 288 · 1959 · SC
- R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT95 citing32 ITR 56 · 1957 · HC
- Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT69 citing97 ITR 258 · 1974 · HC
- Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT9 citing20 ITR 8 · 1951 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069736644(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR has filed his written submissions which are as under :- Your appellant is a Primary
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Limited… vs ADIT, Int. Tax., KolkataKolkata19 Mar 2025Remanded
Also relies on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee failed to provide details, as evidence of e-filing a reply was presented. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
- Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Mumbai vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai…Mumbai16 May 2025Allowed
Also relies on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that if no addition is made on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, the AO cannot make additions on other unrelated issues. The reassessment order was quashed as it was bad in law.
- Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai9 Jun 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for purchasing a new house was not accepted, the cash withdrawn from the bank could be considered as a source for the deposits. It was reasoned that 50% of the with...
- Om Vinyls Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiMumbai13 Feb 2025Allowed
Also relies on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations. The addition on account of cash deposits during demonetization was als...
- ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiDelhi16 Oct 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the cash deposits were detailed and reasoned, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of salary paid to the Dire...
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
