SHYAMNAGAR ANCHAL SKUS LTD.,BANKURA V. ITO, WARD 3(1), , BANKURA

ITA 711/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shyamnagar Anchal SKUS Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was initially barred by limitation but was admitted after the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay. The primary issues in the appeal were the disallowance of a claim under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A. The Assessing Officer had made these additions after the assessee failed to file a return of income for the relevant assessment year, despite significant transactions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the absence of required documents and non-response to notices. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781969 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Madhu Soudhara Pathina vs ITO in ITA No. 969/Bang/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal SKUS Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bankura (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGAS6760G Appearances: Assessee represented by : Sharin Nessa, AR. Department represented by : Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 07-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 29-October-2025 ORDER 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 2016-17 dated 12.09.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2022. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 125 days. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts as well as in law in sustaining the disallowance of claim of Rs. 20,10,454.00, preferred under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. For that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,27,63,200.00 by invoking Section 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961 and by disbelieving the amount of deposits received from members of the Society. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Ld CIT(APPEAL) u.s. 250 dated 12.09.2024 read with assessment order u/s 147/144 dated 31.03.2022, as passed by Ld. AO, is erroneous, arbitrary, contrary to material on records and based on suspicion and doubts, being passed without allowing any effective hearing u.s. 250 in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. For that the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/ or change and/or withdraw any of the grounds adduced or whole appeal at the time of hearing” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) but did not file its return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') had information that huge transactions aggregating to ₹ 1,27,63,200/- were made during the relevant financial year. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income as a Cooperative Society showing NIL income. Statutory notices were issued and after considering the response of the assessee, the Ld. AO added an amount of ₹1,27,63,200/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash and another sum of ₹20,10,454/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act claimed by the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd. ₹1,47,73,654/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and found that the assessee did not respond to even a single notice of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) went through the records of the case and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of the required documents and relying upon the decision of Madhu Soudhara Pathina vs ITO in ITA No. 969/Bang/2023. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that proper opportunity was not provided by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. 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). After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate that in the interest of justice, another opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order as is required u/s 250(6) of the Act. 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 and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd., Gopalnagar, Shyamnagar Bankura, Shyamnagar B.O., Bankura, West Bengal, 722138. 2. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bankura. 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 "