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

ITA 2211/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Balaji Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, a cooperative credit society, which did not file its income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 despite having significant bank transactions. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued notices under various sections of the Income Tax Act due to non-compliance, leading to an ex-parte assessment of income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 232 days, which the assessee attributed to miscommunication by their external consultant. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47258 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2211/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Balaji Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Kodoli, Shivaji Chouk, Panhala, Kolhapur- 416201. PAN : AABAB9500E Vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a cooperative credit society and has not filed its return of income. As per information available, it was noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.2,90,08,000/-, time deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 07.04.2025 ITA No.2211/PUN/2024 2 withdrawn cash of Rs.3,27,74,546/- from its bank accounts. Despite having such high value transaction during the period under consideration, the return of income was not furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 19.03.2022. Since the assessee has not furnished any reply/explanation to the above show-cause notice, order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022 and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee has not complied to this notice, therefore, notice u/s 142(1) and thereafter show-cause notice u/s 144 was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee has not complied with any of the above notices, assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B on a total income of Rs.6,19,82,546/-. The above assessed income includes addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.6,17,82,546/- and also addition u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Since the first appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of 232 days, the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the above delay. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No.2211/PUN/2024 3 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case & after hearing Ld. DR as well as material available on record. 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 232 days and since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee before him, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed without condoning the delay. In this regard, it was the contention of the assessee before LD CIT(A)/NFAC that the notices of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer were sent on email ID of the external consultant of the assessee society who did not informed to the official of the assessee society about the dates of hearing and notices issued by the Assessing Officer which resulted in unfortunate ex-parte order by the Assessing Officer. Since the fact of passing the ex-parte order was not known to the assessee society, ITA No.2211/PUN/2024 4 the first appeal could not be filed within time limit prescribed by the Statute, and when the fact of such a huge demand raised in an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer came to the assessee then immediately assessee contacted a consultant who filed the first appeal belatedly with the delay of 232 days. In this regard, we find that the appeal was not decided on merits of the case by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We further find that the assessee is a cooperative society and not doing business with motive of profit but to provide credit facilities to its members for their upliftment, & it will be genuine hardship on the assessee cooperative society if the ex-parte order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC is not set-aside. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay & decide the appeal afresh as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce explanation documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ITA No.2211/PUN/2024 5 shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 07th April, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "