RAVALNATH GBS SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT AJARA,KOLHAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1819/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ravalnath GBS Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, a cooperative credit society, which appealed against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2019-20. The primary issues were the non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the confirmation of additions made by the Income Tax Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the delay was due to the society's remote location and technological unawareness, compounded by the negligence of their tax consultant. The Tribunal referenced decisions from the Supreme Court emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312439 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MILIND DEBAJE VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S. SHINGTE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 142(1); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2019-20 Ravalnath GBS Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, At/P.O.- Ajara, S.O. Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. PAN : AAAAR5687D Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Centre, Delhi Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned three appeals of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2025 ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 2 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1819/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2016-17 as the lead case for adjudication. ITA No.1819/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 : 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal not accepting the explanation given by the appellant in this regard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the following addition made by the Income Tax Officer, NAFC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the TTO): a. Cash deposits in A/c No.066 Rs.1,23,00,000 The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and has not furnished its return of income. During the year under consideration, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,23,00,000/- into its Savings Bank Account maintained with Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sah Bank Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, the information was called for by issuing notice u/s 142(1) / show cause notice along with questionnaire and the assessee was requested to explain the transaction. However, the assessee did not ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 3 reply to the above notices. Therefore, the said unexplained cash deposit of Rs.1,23,00,000/- deposited in the bank accounts was brought to tax u/s 69A of the IT Act determining the assessee's total income at Rs.1,23,00,000/-. 6. Since the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of 774 days and the explanation of delay furnished by the assessee was not found satisfactory, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by holding the same as inadmissible. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have considered the explanation offered by the assessee wherein it was made clear that the assessee credit cooperative society is situated in remote area and the office bearers are not well versed with the technology. Apart from above, it was also submitted that the consultant has given his e-mail ID and after receiving notices he never informed to the assessee regarding notices of hearing. Ld. AR relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP No.6145 of 2024 dated 21.03.2025 in this regard. Ld. AR also relied on the ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 4 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC). Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct him to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws. In this regard, we find that admittedly, there was delay of 774 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was the only contention of Ld. AR that in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court judgement cited (supra) liberal approach should be taken in condoning the delay when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. In the instant case in hand, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee credit cooperative society is situated in remote village area and the office bearers are not friendly with the technology and solely relied/dependent on the tax consultant who failed to inform about the date of hearing to the assessee ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 5 credit cooperative society. In support of these contentions, a separate affidavit duly sworn in by the chairman of the assessee credit cooperative society is also furnished before the Bench. 10. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra) while condoning the delay has held as under :- “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient case, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined. It should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 11. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 12. Respectfully following the above decisions cited (supra), we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to him with a direction ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 6 to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, because of the careless attitude of the assessee, we levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited within 30 days from receipt of this order, failing which the order of Ld. CIT will remain as it is. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/ additional evidences/explanations in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1819/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1824/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2019-20 : 14. Since the facts and issues involved in above appeal of the assessee are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1819/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 7 to the above appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1824/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2019-20. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1824/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2019-20 is also allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1820 /PUN/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 : 16. In the above appeal assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in not condoning the delay and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh, therefore, this being the consequential penalty order also needs to be set- aside and accordingly we set-aside and remand the penalty appeal order back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the penalty appeal afresh by condoning the delay and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the above appeal are partly allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1820/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/PUN/2024 8 18. To sum up, all the above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30th 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, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "