NATUNGRAM SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), , MURSHIDABAD

That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts and nature of the Appellant as well as the entire transaction within member of the Appellant. 4 That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the provision of interest, suspense & other in computing the total income of the Appellant, the same would only go to increase the income of the co-operative society, which in turn, automatically lead to enhanced deduction of section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in relying on various case laws, which are not at all applicable to the Appellant's case The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and had filed the return of income showing ‘NIL’ income after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act at ₹36,40,934/- . Subsequently, the case was selected under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee did not furnish any details. Subsequently, the assessment was completed as best judgment and deduction u/s 80P of ₹36,40,934/- was disallowed and the liabilities of ₹3,23,82,878/- in the balance sheet were also added to the total income of the assessee in the absence of supporting documents and evidences and the total income was assessed at ₹3,60,23,813/- u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who carefully examined the submissions filed by the assessee and noted that the Ld. AO had passed the assessment order by making huge addition ITA No.: 905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Natungram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited. in the absence of proper reply on behalf of the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) restored the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for deciding all the facts on merit afresh by holding as under: “9.4 With respect to the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P amounting to Rs. 36,40,934/- and the liabilities of Rs.3,23,82,878/- in the balance sheet. It is noticed that the AO has added total deduction and liabilities of the appellant without examining the facts. As the Assessing officer failed to examine the books of accounts and interest paid to the members. It is also fact that the Assessing officer has not brought any material on record to indicate that the appellant has obtained any benefit against such liabilities and the mechanical addition of entire liabilities of Rs. 3,23,82,878/- for the A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, in view of the power conferred as per clause(a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the act applicable with effect from 01.10.2024, I hereby set aside the impugned assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. Therefore, the considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide all the facts on merit freshly in accordance with law. Needless to say that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Appellant is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer as and when the date of hearing is given and to provide all necessary evidence and information without any further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reason. According, the grounds of appeal by appellant are allowed for statistical purpose. In the end result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.”