GREEN LAND SOCIETY ( N.G.O),DHUBRI vs. WARD-2(3) XEMPT , GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
Considering the lack of proper compliance by the assessee's consultant before both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of both lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit explanations, with a directive not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an NGO, failed to file its return of income as required under section 139(4C)(e). The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147, treating a cash withdrawal of ₹1,10,34,000/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C due to lack of explanation. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment reopening and addition of cash withdrawal as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was justified, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present its case given prior non-compliance before lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139(4C)(e),Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 69C,Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 30.05.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/s 250 are bad in law.
For that on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the assessing officer erred in making an addition of ₹11034000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the income tax act 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same.
For that any other grounds may kindly be allow to be urge at the time of hearing.” ITA No.: 276/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Green Land Society (N.G.O.).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an NGO/Society and had not filed the return of income despite being required to do so u/s 139(4C)(e) of the Act as its total income without considering the exempted income had exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The assessee was found to have withdrawn cash from a current account amounting to ₹1,10,34,000/- during the relevant previous year and since no return of income was filed, therefore, the proceedings were reopened u/s 147 of the Act after following the prescribed procedure and in notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee failed to respond to these communications from the Ld. AO and since no satisfactory explanation was provided, therefore, the source of cash withdrawn amounting to ₹1,10,34,000/- remained unexplained and was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In Form no. 35 the assessee had mentioned that “Facts of the case will be furnished at the time of hearing.” The Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices during the course of the appeal but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices, therefore, the addition was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that due to lack of communication between the consultant and the assessee, proper compliance could not be made. It is mentioned that the assessee has sufficient evidence for explaining the source of withdrawals and ITA No.: 276/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Green Land Society (N.G.O.). requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR on the other hand requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed.
Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld. AO and remand the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th December, 2025 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. [Manomohan Das] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.12.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No.: 276/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Green Land Society (N.G.O.). Copy of the order forwarded to:
Green Land Society (N.G.O.), Chotobashjani, Chagolchara, Dhubri, Assam, 783324. 2. Ward-2(3) Xempt, Guwahati.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.
Guard File. //// By order
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shalini Vishwakarma vs. Icici BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026