SAHYOGH NAGRI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JALNA V. ITO WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA

ITA 36/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, a cooperative credit society, which did not file its income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15. The Income Tax Department noticed substantial cash deposits in the society's bank account and subsequently reopened the assessment, leading to an ex-parte order assessing income of Rs.1,45,39,000 as unexplained money under sections 69A and 115BBE of the IT Act. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the society's appeal as infructuous due to non-payment of advance tax, without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found this dismissal inappropriate and remanded the case for a detailed examination of the merits, allowing the society to present its case and claim applicable deductions under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 361042 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari vs. ITO, Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO, Govidappa Setty vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JHA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.36/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, 17/85, Juna Monda Mahesh Nagar, Ambad, Dist. Jalna-431203. PAN : ABMFS8514J Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jalna. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a cooperative credit society and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available with the Department, it was noticed that the assessee has deposited Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 04.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 23.05.2025 ITA No.36/PUN/2025 2 cash to the tune of Rs.1,45,39,000/- in the bank account maintained with Chickly Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Accordingly, the order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed after deciding the objection filed by the assessee. After reopening the case, notice u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued respectively. In reply to the notice u/s 148, the assessee furnished return of income belatedly declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A. Since the assessee did not furnished any reply to the above notices, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the IT Act and an income of Rs.1,45,39,000/- was determined. The above assessed income includes addition made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 3. Since the appellant has offered no comments at serial no.9 of From 35 and appellant failed to make payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income and the appellant also did not requested for exemption u/s 249(b) of the IT Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as infructuous without admitting the same for adjudication. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ITA No.36/PUN/2025 3 dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable as per section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act is to be determined at the behest of the assessee. If there is no advance tax liability according to the assessee, then he need not to deposit the same & Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is required to admit the appeal of the assessee in such an event. In the instant case, it is the claim of the assessee that since the assessee remained absent the assessment order was passed ex-parte & whatever deductions were legally available to the assessee were not allowed by the Assessing Officer. It is the contention of the assessee that being cooperative society the business income of the assessee was subject to deduction 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act and due to ex-parte order the same deductions were not allowed which resulted in determination of unnecessary taxable income in the hands of the assessee. We find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in a summery manner without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case. It was the observation of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act & when ITA No.36/PUN/2025 4 the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file any application to exempt him from payment of advance tax in the light of the fact that no advance tax is payable by him. In this regard, we find support from the decisions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to admit the appeal of the assessee & adjudicate the same on merits of the case 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 and submit the requisite details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as ITA No.36/PUN/2025 5 per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23rd May, 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. "