ALIPURDUAR COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., ,ALIPURDUAR V. ITO, WARD 2(3), , ALIPURDUAR

ITA 977/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2020-21. The primary issues revolved around the treatment of substantial cash deposits and commission income as unexplained or undisclosed income under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of the appeals and assessments, including non-representation and failure to condone delays in filing appeals. The Tribunal's decision focused on providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing justice and fair play over strict procedural adherence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772545 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAA7485L Appearances: Assessee represented by : N. C. Mondal, CA. Department represented by : Raja Sengupta, (CIT) DR and Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 13-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 28-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders 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 AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21 dated 21.03.2025, 24.03.2025 and 25.03.2025, respectively, which have been passed against the separate assessment orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.03.2022, 27.03.2022 and 08.09.2022, respectively. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 977/KOL/2025; AY 2015-16: “THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN- ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041733338(1) dated 27-03-2022 passed by the Additional / Joint/Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has grossly erred in law and not justified by considering the entire cash deposit of Rs.90760683/- into bank accounts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without verifying whether there 'was any element of income or not. As such the assessment order is bad in law and required to be deleted. THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has grossly erred in law and not justified by considering commission received Rs.2070/- as undisclosed income without deducting there from reasonable expenses incurred to earn the same. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” II. ITA No. 978/KOL/2025; AY 2016-17: “THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC erred in declining to condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC has erred in law and not justified by ignoring merit of the assessee's case and confirming addition of the entire cash deposit of Rs.9,95,03,585/- into bank accounts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adjudicating whether there was any element of income or not. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC has erred in law and not justified by confirming addition of commission received Rs.3,73,114/- as undisclosed income U/S.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without deducting there from reasonable expenses incurred to earn the same. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” III. ITA No. 979/KOL/2025; AY 2020-21: “THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC erred in declining to condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC has erred in law and not justified by ignoring merit of the assessee's case and by confirming disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.1,67,97,484/- u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed in return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” 4. We shall first take up ITA No. 977/KOL/2025; AY 2015-16 as the lead case. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act and is engaged in the business of mobilising deposits from its members and providing credit facilities to them for the purpose of agriculture. The Income Tax Department had information that the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹9,07,60,683/- and had also earned commission income of ₹2,070/-; however, the assessee had not filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; however, despite multiple notices and opportunities provided, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act. The Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') treated the cash deposit of ₹9,07,60,683/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the commission income of ₹2,070/- as income from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The total income was thus assessed at ₹9,07,62,750/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who examined the law relating to condonation of delay and the judicial pronouncements in this regard and considering the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 496 days in filing the appeal before him as the delay was not condoned. The appeal was treated as not maintainable and the order of the Ld. AO was upheld. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee is a small cooperative and it had entrusted the job of income-tax to the authorized representative. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings and the assessment order was made ex parte. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should not be penalized on account of the default made by the consultants. The Ld. DR vehemently argued that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be sustained as that the assessee had defaulted both before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, despite being provided sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), did not present itself in the appellate proceedings Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and, therefore, did not avail the opportunities provided and could not justify the delay on account of improper representation. As the assessee was not diligent in pursuing the appeal nor had given any justification for the delay on account of non-representation as to how the delay was justified and the assessee had sufficient cause. The same related to a series of internal issues within the organisation, including the lack of a knowledgeable workforce, absence of a functioning Board of Directors and reliance on an authorised representative for compliance with the income tax laws, which are enumerated in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). These factors appear to be more of a statement of circumstances rather than a substantiated claim supported by documentary evidence as per the Ld. CIT(A). Another issue of not being aware of the login password for the ITD portal was also of significant concern but the Ld. CIT(A) to take it to be a matter of poor organisational control and a lack of proper internal systems to monitor compliance. However, the Bench was of the view that as these were sufficient causes for non-compliance in filing the appeal in time, the appeal should have been admitted after condoning the delay and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity subject to payment of cost for the defaults in non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A)/the Ld. AO. Therefore, both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO are hereby set aside and the issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- each for the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21 to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta - 700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and produce the receipt of the same before the Ld. AO. In case the assessee does not pay the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. abovementioned cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. 8. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 I.T.A. Nos.: 977, 978 & 979/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Alipurduar Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Debinagar, P.O. & Dist. Alipurduar, West Bengal, 736121. 2. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "