ADIM JATI SEVA SAHAKARI S ANSTHA BELKUND,BELKUND, BETUL vs. ITO, BETUL, BETUL
Facts
The assessee, a primary agriculture credit co-operative society, did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on cash deposits of Rs. 2.31 crore and made an addition under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal in limine due to non-prosecution without considering the merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) and, in the interest of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The stay application was dismissed as the main appeal was disposed of.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s in limine dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without a decision on merits, contrary to Section 250(6), warranted remanding the case for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 148, 148A(b), 142(1), 69A, 115BBE, 250(4), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
The captioned two matters are being disposed of by this consolidated order since these matters are connected.
SA No. 2/Ind/2026:
This stay-application filed by assessee arises out of assessee’s 2. appeal being ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 pending before ITAT, Indore. After Page 1 of 5
Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Betul SA No. 2/Ind/2026 & ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 – AY 2018-19 initial deliberations of the facts, the Ld. AR for assessee submitted
that he would be satisfied if this stay-application is dismissed but at
the same time the assessee’s ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 is heard
immediately. Ld. DR for revenue agreed. Hence, the stay-application
is dismissed and the ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 is immediately listed and
heard.
ITA No. 95/Ind/2026:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of first-appeal 3.
dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2023 passed by learned ITO, Betul [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of
Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19.
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a primary agriculture credit co-operative society. For AY 2018-19,
the assessee did not file any return u/s 139. The AO, from verification of Taxpayer Annual Summary (TAS), came to know that the assessee made transactions of cash deposits of Rs. 2,31,02,133/- in Zila Sahakari Kendriya
Bank Ltd. during the previous year 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19. Accordingly, the AO completed preliminary proceeding of section 148A(b)
and thereafter issued a notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s 148 so as to undertake assessment of assessee u/s 147. In response, the assessee filed return
Page 2 of 5
Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Betul SA No. 2/Ind/2026 & ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 – AY 2018-19 belatedly on 05.03.2023. Thereafter, the AO issued notices raising queries
u/s 142(1). The assessee filed a reply dated 19.03.2023 which is re-
produced by AO in Para 5 of assessment-order. In such reply, the assessee
made pointwise submissions and also filed copies of P&L A/c, registration
certificate, bye-laws, bank statement, computation of income, etc. The AO
considered assessee’s submissions but ultimately made an addition of Rs.
2,31,02,133/- treating the entire amount of impugned deposits as
unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Aggrieved, the assessee matter
in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine
without adjudicating merits of case due to non-prosecution. Still aggrieved,
the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the section 250(6) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for
determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. He
further submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed
assessee’s first appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the
dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section
250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A)
deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for restoring to him for a proper
adjudication. In so far as non-prosecution before CIT(A) is concerned, Ld. AR
drew us to Para 4 of impugned order wherein the CIT(A) has mentioned that
Page 3 of 5
Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Betul SA No. 2/Ind/2026 & ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 – AY 2018-19 all notices were given to registered e-mail. Ld. AR submitted that the
assessee is located in a rural area and having less skilled man power and
the internet technologies are also not sound. Therefore, the assessee could
not access the notices of hearing sent by CIT(A) which has only led to the
non-prosecution.
Ld. AR next carried us to the assessment-order and demonstrated
that the assessee has filed a reply dated 19.03.2023 giving all required
details to the AO, however the AO has not properly appreciated the case or
details of assessee. He acknowledged that the assessee is still ready and
willing to make an effective representation for the satisfaction of AO if an
opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be
remanded to the AO for a fresh consideration and assessment.
Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a
request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not
seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle
of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be
caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we
remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk
and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of
hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his
earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure
Page 4 of 5
Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Betul SA No. 2/Ind/2026 & ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 – AY 2018-19 participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek
unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Resultantly, the SA No. 2/Ind/2026 is dismissed and the ITA
No. 95/Ind/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court immediately after conclusion of hearing and subsequently reduced in writing on 13/02/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 13/02/2026
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 5 of 5
