##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“B” BENCH: BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

AND

SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 1138, 1139 & 1299/Bang/2025

Assessment years: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2016-17

The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh

Ward 1 TPS, Niyamit, Sarwad,

Vijayapur. Opp. Gram Panchayat,

Sarwad, Viajayapur Dist.

PAN: AAMFP 9081G

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Respondent by : Dr. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Date of hearing : 02.12.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1. ITA No.1138 & 1139/Bang/2025 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 are filed

by the ITO, Ward 1 TPS, Vijayapur [ The Ld. AO ] against the

appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

(NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 21.3.2025 wherein the appal filed by the

assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of

ITA Nos.1138, 1139 & 1299/Bang/2025

Page 2 of 6

the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] , were allowed. Therefore the ld.

AO is in appeals before us.

2. The facts for AY 2016-17 show that assessee did not file any return of

income and therefore the case of the assessee was a non-filer as there

was a huge cash deposit of Rs.1,71,32,728. This verification was

further done by the AO and noted that assessee has deposited such sum

in IDBI Bank and Vijayapur District Central Coop. Bank [VDCC]. As

no return of income was filed, after recording the reasons and getting

statutory approval, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27.3.2021.

The assessee also did not file any return of income in response to that

notice. Notice u/s 142(1) was also issued to the assessee and

subsequently a request was also made to the verification unit for

physical service of the notice. The assessee did not file any response.

Accordingly the case was converted into ex parte assessment and show

cause notice was issued u/s. 144 of The Act on 14.3.2022.

Accordingly the reassessment order was passed wherein the addition of

Rs.1,71,32,728/- was made to the total income of the assessee and

further it was held that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P of

the Act.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein

the written submission was made by the assessee and it was stated that

the cash deposits are made out of day to day activity of the assessee.

The relevant extract of the cash book was also furnished along with

bank account extract. The assessee pleaded that it cannot be held to be

ITA Nos.1138, 1139 & 1299/Bang/2025

Page 3 of 6

unexplained income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter passed

the appellate order wherein he following the decision of the coordinate

Bench on the issue of deduction u/s. 80P, deleted the addition u/s. 69A

of the Act of Rs.1,71,32,728.

4. Similarly for AY 2017-18, the facts also show that assessee was a non-

filer and the assessee has deposited various amounts totaling to

Rs.13,62,29,544/-. As the assessee did not furnish any answer, the ld.

AO on verification of cash withdrawal, investments and cash deposits,

worked out the total transaction of Rs.4,40,48,554/- and made addition

u/s. 69A of the Act by assessment order dated 24.3.2022. The ld.

CIT(A) vide order dated 21.3.2025 was like AY 2016-17 deleted the

above addition. Therefore, the AO is in appeals before us.

5. The ld. DR, Shri Subramanian, vehemently submitted that the orders of

the ld. CIT(A) are not sustainable as the additions have been deleted

without verifying any fact that wherefrom the assessee has held so

much of cash. Assessee is a non-filer, no books of accounts etc. were

examined. The ld. CIT(A) did not give any finding that how the order

of the ld. AO is incorrect. He submitted that there is not even a single

line in the appellate order that how the addition made by the ld. AO is

incorrect. He referred to the appellate order and assessment order. He

submitted that ld. AO made addition u/s 69 of the Act,