BALAJI GRAMIN SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,MAHARASHTRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 2141/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Balaji Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society, appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 226 days in filing. The original assessment was made under sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting in additions of Rs. 1,30,14,669 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal found that the delay was caused by the society's misunderstanding of the new faceless system and reliance on their auditors, who failed to communicate the necessary actions to the society's office bearers. The Tribunal considered this a reasonable cause for the delay and thus condoned it, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and remitting the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28867 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MS. SHILPA N.C.
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Bonafide belief
• Section: 148; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2141/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Balaji Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, 1 Kodoli Shivaji Chouk Panhala, Kolhapur-416201 Maharashtra PAN-AABAB9500E Vs ITO, Ward 1(5), Kolhapur Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : M/s. Shilpa N.C., Additional-CIT Date of hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 dated 24.03.2023. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. C.I.T. (Appeals). NFAC, Delhi has erred in non-condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though sufficient cause was demonstrated beyond doubt. 2. Whether CIT (A), NFAC is correct in dismissing the case limine without going into the merits 2 ITA No.2141/PUN/2024 3. The impugned notice under section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer, which is outside the faceless mechanism as provided under the provisions of Section 144(B) read with Section 151A, as the notice is without jurisdiction and the consequential order is bad in law. 4. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s 69 A r.w.s 115BBE when the assessee is a co op society and the source can be explained. 5. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit/ time deposit of Rs 44,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE when the source can be explained. 6. Whether AO is correct in passing order merely on the availability of information with department which does not confirm the actual facts. 7. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s69 A r.w.s 115BBE when the actual deposit are only of Rs 8,00,000/- 8. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s69 A r.w.s 115BBE only by placing reliance on the wrong information available with officer but not confirmed by assessee nor any documentary evidence. 9. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal 10. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed. 3. When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however written submission have been filed. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the able assistance of ld. DR and available record. I note that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of 226 days delay in filing the appeal. Assessee gave reasons for delay of appeal but ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation. 4. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities. 5. I have heard ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not condoning the delay of 226 days. The assessee is a co-operative society and during the course of scrutiny A proceedings did not make proper 3 ITA No.2141/PUN/2024 compliance as a result ld. AO framed best judgement u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023 making additions of Rs. 1,30,14,669/- Against the said addition assessee appealed to ld. CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 226 days. The delay was not condoned by CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Before me the assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reason which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) within prescribed time limit and the main reason was that the notices were sent on the email Id of the co-operative auditors and the assessee society was under bonafide belief that the auditor would do the needful or inform the office bearers of the society but since there was no communication, the assessee society got informed about passing of order at a later date which has resulted in the said delay. 7. I find that the assessee society is not equipped with technical expertise of handling new faceless system of the proceedings. As a result delay occured in filing the appeal. Considering this as a reasonable clause, I condone the delay of 226 days in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue on merits raised by the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and to pass a speaking order. The Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and should not seek adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable clause. Order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and grounds 4 ITA No.2141/PUN/2024 of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for stastical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 10th February, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"A\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"A\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "