Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Credit Co-operative Society, did not file its income return for A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 based on information of cash deposits, making additions and disallowances. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee to notices.
Held
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The tribunal directed that the assessee be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and should cooperate in submitting information for early disposal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in summarily dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250, 133(6), 148, 142(1), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRIPAVAN KUMAR GADALEShri Chakradhar Swamy Mahila
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147r.w.s.144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2016–17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:–
“The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2) The learned CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record.
2 Shri Chakradhar Swamy Mahila Gramin BigarshetiPatpurwthaSahakari Sanstha ITA no.558/Nag./2025
3) The order passed by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT (Appeals) u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT (Appeals) at Rs. 7,19,36,385/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 5) The learned A.O. erred and was not justified in making addition of net profit earned by the assessee of Rs. 86,856/- and making disallowance of Rs. 6,38,712/ on account of Pigmi Agent Commission paid by the assessee during the year. 6) The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 2348 and 2340 of LT. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 23-4A, 23413 and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 7) Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Credit Co– operative Society and the assesse has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016–17. The Assessing Officer based on the information available with the income tax Department found that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Abhyudaya Co– operative Bank Ltd in the F.Y.2015-16. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec 133(6) of the Act on the Abhyudaya Co–operative Bank Ltd. and obtained the bank statements. The Asseseing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 and there was no compliance. Further, the assessee was provided opportunities by issuing notice u/sec 142(1) on various dates and there was a part compliance. The Assessing Officer considering the submissions and the information found that the assessee has deposited cash in the bank account out of the transactions of the society. Similarly,
3 Shri Chakradhar Swamy Mahila Gramin BigarshetiPatpurwthaSahakari Sanstha ITA no.558/Nag./2025 the assessee also made deposits in Saraswat Co–operative Bank. Further in compliance to the show cause notice, the assessee has filed partial information. Finally, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations and disallowed the expenditure of Rs.6,38,712/– and also computed net profit of Rs.86,856/– and assessed the total income of Rs.7,25,568/– and passed the order u/se 147 r.w.s144 of the Act dated 19-03-2024. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A).
In appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, findings of the Assessing Officer and issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance to the notices by the assessee, the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing ex–parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
Heard the Ld.DR’s submissions and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal, as there was no compliance to the notices issued on various dates. Further the CIT(A) is of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal and has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas, the assessee has raised grounds of appeal
challenging the action of the assessing officer. There could be various reasons for non–compliance by 4. Shri Chakradhar Swamy Mahila Gramin BigarshetiPatpurwthaSahakari Sanstha ITA no.558/Nag./2025 the assessee which cannot be ruled out. Hence, considering the facts, circumstances, and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity for hearing. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate issue afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should also co–operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17/10/2025 as per rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963