PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SHAKARI SAMITI, VIDISHA,TARVARIYA SIKONJ, VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VIDISHA

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal.

The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076311901(1) passed by the

Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year

Page 1 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

is 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is

from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016.

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

147rws144/144B of the Act, the total income of the

Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 2,26,38,386/-.

The original return of income was not filed. Income as per

the ROI filed u/s 148 was NIL. The addition of Rs.

2,26,38,386/- was made on account of cash deposit with

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit as per Para 3.4 of the

aforesaid assessment order. The aforesaid assessment order

bears no:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1058322765(1) and

that the same is dated 29/11/2023, which is herein after

referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.

2.2 The assessee is a cooperative society and had not filed

its return of income for AY 2015-16. Subsequently the

information was received by the income tax dept. that during

the year under consideration the assessee had entered into

the following transactions:-

Page 2 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

S.No. Details of transactions Amount involved (in Rs.) 1 Cash deposited in bank account 2,03,41,206/- maintained with Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Total 2,03,41,206/-

2.3 In the “impugned assessment order” it is also recorded that

the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 08/04/2022. In-

compliance to the said notice the assessee filed its return of

income for AY, 2015-16 on 30/04/2022 declaring total income at

NIL.

2.4 It is recorded in the “impugned assessment order” that

several opportunities were given to the assessee as and by way of

the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the act. The letters and show

cause notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee however

has not complied with any of the notices. The relevant details are

as under:-

Page 3 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 4 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

2.5 In the “impugned assessment order” it is recorded as

under:-

Page 5 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 6 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 7 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 8 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 9 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

Page 10 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

2.6 The Assessee was issued a show cause under section 144

rws 144B (1)(xii)(6) on 10/11/2023 asking them to show cause

as to why the amount of Rs. 2,26,38,386/- should not be added

to its income. The assessee, however has neither submitted any

reply nor submitted the source of cash deposit of Rs.

2,26,38,386/-. The assessee has failed to explain the nature and

source of cash deposits in its bank accounts. Ultimately by the

Page 11 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

“impugned assessment order” the Ld. AO has treated the

amount of cash deposit of Rs. 2,26,38,386/- as an unexplained

money u/s 69A of the Act.

2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “impugned order”

has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and

reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the

dismissal of the first appeal were as under:-

“5. The appellant’s appeal was fixed for hearing on the following dates: S.No. Hearing notice dated Hearing date Remarks 1. 25.11.2024 02.12.2024 No compliance

5.1 There were no compliance to notices which were sent on the email id i.e. pacssironj@gmail.com mentioned in Form No.35 filed by the appellant. Notices were also uploaded on the web portal of the department during the appellate proceedings, login rights whereof were available to the appellant. Despite given repeated opportunities of being heard, there has been no compliance to the notices. It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. In the absence of any submission from the appellant, the grounds of appeal are decided on merits on the basis of facts available on record. In result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Page 12 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

2.8 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has

preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has

raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36 against

the “impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. That the order of the NFAC is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law and also in breach of principle of natural justice. 2. That the Order of the NFAC erred in confirming the Re-Assessment Order dated 20/05/2025 as same is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction 2.1 That the Ld. NFAC and the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in confirming the re-assessment order dated 29.11.2023 for A.Y. 2015-16, as the same is barred by limitation in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). 2.2 That the CIT(A) NEAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs 2,26,38,386/-11/s 69A. 2.3 That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1142500/- being cash deposited in bank accounts without appreciating that the said cash was qua the repayment of loan by farmers. 2.4 That the CIT (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the addition u/s 69A without appreciating that provision of Section 69A is not applicable in case of cash deposit duly recorded in the audited books of account and offered as income. that in the present case the assessee himself has declared the amount of cash deposited in the return of income after duly entering the same in the books of account. Thus the provision of section 69A is not applicable and has wrongly been invoked. 2.5 That the CIT (A) NFAC failed to note that Sec. 69A of the Act is applied when the assesse is found to be owner of any money which is not recorded in the books of account. However, in the case of the assessee, it has maintained books of accounts duly audited in accordance with section 44AB of the Income Tax Act which was also furnished with the return of income filed by the assessee. The assesse has demonstrated from the books of account that source of cash deposited was out of re-payment made by the Farmers against their loans. 3. The appellant craves permission to raise additional grounds and to amend or alter the foregoing ground before the appeal is finally decided." 3. Record of Hearing

Page 13 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 19.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in

the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore

deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that even the

“impugned assessment order” is ex-parte and bad in law.

No legitimate reason was given by the Ld. AR as to why both

the orders of lower authorities are ex-parte despite service of

notice(s) etc. The Ld. AR had nothing to reply. Per contra Ld.

DR appearing for the revenue submitted that since the

assessee is a society and deals with the agriculture,

agriculture produce, farmers, at ground level the revenue

has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the

matters is remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO on denovo

basis with a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each appeal.

Observations Findings & conclusions 4.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

Page 14 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that both

the “impugned assessment order” as well as the

“impugned order” are ex-parte. The core issue has not been

adjudicated and adjudged basis merits so this tribunal

desires that total income of the assessee should be computed

and assessed on the real time basis exigible to tax in

accordance with law by following the due process of law

under the Act. This tribunal also expects the assessee to be

compliant as and when notices etc. are issued. In brief this

tribunal desires the meritorious disposal of both the

“impugned assessment order” as well as “impugned

order”. The assessee cooperation in this regard assumes

importance. The assessee cannot go in slumber mode. In

the result we are of the considered opinion that the

“impugned order” should be set aside and matter should be

Page 15 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for passing a fresh order

on merits of the case.

4.4 In the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the

“impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of

Ld. AO on denovo basis subject to the payment of cost of

Rs.5000/- in each appeal as & by way of deterent measures

& to ensures compliances on the part of the assessee. The

cost of Rs.5000/- shall be paid as & by way of a challan

under category “others” to income tax department & the Ld.

AO shall take up the denovo adjudication only after

necessary proof is shown to him. The assessee is directed not

to take any credit of said cost against any taxes, penalty etc.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO with directions as

aforesaid.

5.2. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA NO.633/Ind/2025 (AY 2016-17)

Page 16 of 17

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti ITA No. 632 & 633/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17

5.3 The facts and circumstances of the ITA No.- 633/Ind/2025

(AY 2016-17) are more or less similar and identical to ITA

No.632/Ind/2025. This matter was heard too with consent of

both the parties on 19/01/2026. Hence order made in ITA No-

632/Ind/2025 would apply mutatis mutandis to appeal no.

633/Ind/2025.

5.4 In result “impugned orders” in both appeals are set aside

as and by way of remand to Ld. AO with directions as aforesaid.

5.5 Both appeals allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 30.01.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 30/01/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 17 of 17