M/S SHRI UPASNI KANYA KUMARI STHAN, Ahmednagar V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Nashik, Nashik

ITA 136/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, a charitable organization, appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed an addition of Rs.61,58,528 as unexplained money under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices, which the assessee contested, citing reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive grounds on merits and directed a re-examination of the cash deposit issue by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137550 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.136/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2017-2018 M/s. Shri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, A/P- Sakuri, Rahata, Ahmednagar – 423 107 Maharashtra. PAN AACTS9493B vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002 Maharashtra. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi’s Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047878455(1), dated 08.12.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1) “The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal since there was non compliance on the part of the assessee in respect of the notices 2 ITA.No.136/PUN./2023 M/s. Shri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, Ahmednagar. issued by him and thereby, erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for want of prosecution. 2) The assessee submits that there was a reasonable cause on its part for non compliance to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, requests for one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on account of cash deposit in bank account of Rs.61,58,528/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money without appreciating that there was no reason to make any addition on the facts of the case. 4) The assessee submits that the cash deposited in bank account of Rs.61,58,528/- was collected out of the donations received from the various donors and hence, there was no reason to make any addition in the hands of the assessee on account of the cash deposit in the bank account. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. It emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion that he has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte as per Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), than adjudicating its corresponding substantive grounds on merits vide a well reasoned order as prescribed u/s.260(6) of the Act. All what the learned CIT(A) has done in otherwords in para-7 of his lower 3 ITA.No.136/PUN./2023 M/s. Shri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, Ahmednagar. appellate discussion is to simply affirm the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69 addition of Rs.61,58,528/- in issue by a totally non-speaking order. 4. We further note from the Assessing Officer’s sec.144 assessment as well that the assessee had failed to comply with the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notices. Learned counsel has stated reasons of the above alleged non-compliance to various issues at it’s governing body level. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the Assessing Officer needs to re- examine the assessee’s impugned cash deposits issue of Rs.61,58,528/- preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the condition that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only to file and lead all the cogent evidence to this effect. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 03 rd April, 2023 VBP/- 4 ITA.No.136/PUN./2023 M/s. Shri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, Ahmednagar. Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), Nashik 4. 5. 6. The CCIT, Pune The DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary : ITAT : Pune