" 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, बेंगलुरू पीठ ें, बेंगलुरू INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE BENCH: SMC BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA 1559/Bang/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 1, BEHIND SBI, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587103, KARNATAKA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR NO. 24, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102, KARNATAKA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AABAN8052B अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri. Sam Moncy, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Sri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Dept सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 25-Aug-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 28-Sep-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre Delhi for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 17 December 2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143 (3 read with section 144B of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) dated 17 March 2024 was dismissed by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1559/BANG/2026 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 2 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned order passed by the Learned Officer, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts in passing the assessment order without jurisdiction. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal under section 249 belatedly. 4. In the absence of proper notice/order service, the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 5. The proceedings are bad in law as the notice initiating the proceedings are issued in violation of the provisions of section 151A of the Act; 6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in not giving the proper opportunity of being heard through Video Conferencing. Thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the order without proper compliance with the procedure laid down under section 148A and without due application of mind. 8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in recharacterizing the nature of income. 9. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts by denying the deduction to the extent of Rs 47,22,894/- as claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 10. The actions of the Learned CIT(A) and AO are contrary to the provisions of the Act, facts of the case, arbitrary and without any application of mind; Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1559/BANG/2026 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 3 11. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in not properly appreciating the explanation and submissions regarding the nature of transactions and income, and have made additions without bringing any cogent material on record 12. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A(6) for under-reporting of income; 13. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in raising demand by issuing notice under section 156 of the Act; 14. The Learned Officer has erred in law by levying interest under section 234A/B/C of the Act. (Tax effect Rs. 14,70,422) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be quashed and relief sought be granted. 3. The assessee, a co-operative society, did not file a return of income for the relevant year. Information received through the Insight Portal indicated that taxable income had escaped assessment; accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued. The assessee was found to have made cash deposits of 2 ₹ 41,824,500 in Bhagalpur Court District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Boggle Court, and RBI Bank Ltd. In response, it filed a return on 18 March 2023 declaring nil income. The assessee explained that ₹ 48,024,500 deposited in its bank account represented receipts from the credit co- operative society’s depositors and loan recoveries from members, all recorded in the audited profit and loss account. It stated that the deposits comprised members’ savings, loan repayments, gold loans, general loans, women’s loans, short-term fixed deposits, and cash certificates. It also submitted that its activities were governed by its bylaws and the Co-operative Societies Act. In support, it furnished the computation of total income, balance sheet, profit and loss account, cash book, cash-flow statement, daybook, and details of cash deposits into the bank accounts. The Assessing Officer accepted the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1559/BANG/2026 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 4 explanation regarding the deposits. However, because the return was not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1), the Assessing Officer denied the deduction under section 80P and assessed the total income at ₹ 4,722,894. 4. The assessee’s appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed late. It explained that the order under section 147 of the Act, along with the computation sheet and demand notice, showed no demand arising from the denial of the deduction under section 80P. A demand was raised only after the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order. Believing that no appeal was initially required, the assessee filed the appeal belatedly. The learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The assessee has therefore appealed before us. 5. Before us, the assessee challenged the impugned order on 14 grounds. Shri Sam Moncy, Advocate, appeared for the assessee and initially sought an adjournment. It was explained that the assessee could seek condonation of the delay in filing its return. Unless the delay is condoned, a return filed beyond the prescribed time bars the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 80P of the Act. The appropriate course is therefore to seek condonation; if granted, the claim under section 80P may be considered. Learned counsel agreed. 6. Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, concurred with this course. 7. We have considered the parties’ submissions. The assessee is a co-operative society otherwise eligible for a deduction under section 80P of the Act. Because it had not originally filed a return and substantial cash deposits appeared in its bank account, a notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee then filed its return. The Assessing Officer accepted its explanation of the cash deposits and found no unaccounted income. The sole issue was that the return had not been filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). Consequently, section 80AC barred the deduction under section 80P. 8. The assessee’s remaining remedy is to apply under section 119(2) of the Act to the Central Board of Direct Taxes or the authority specified under that provision. Accordingly, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1559/BANG/2026 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 5 matter is restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. The assessee may file such an application, if so advised; otherwise, it will not be entitled to the deduction under section 80P of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer shall wait for 90 days from the date on which the assessee receives this order to enable it to approach the appropriate authority. If an application is filed within that period, the Assessing Officer shall not deny the deduction until the application is disposed of. If no application is filed, the order passed under section 147 of the Act shall stand upheld. 9. Accordingly, subject to the above directions, the assessee’s appeal is restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2026. Sd/- PRASHANT MAHARISHI VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore Dated: 28.09.2026 *TNTS* Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1559/BANG/2026 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 6 Copy to: 1 NEKARAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYMIT 1, BEHIND SBI, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587103, KARNATAKA 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR NO. 24, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE CIT(APPEALS) 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE Printed from counselvise.com "