TANISHKA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(3), PUNE

ITA 103/PUN/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Tanishka Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, a credit cooperative society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The society had not filed its return of income, and based on information from the Department, it was found to have deposited a substantial amount of cash in a bank account during the relevant financial year. The AO reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made additions to the income under section 69A due to unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the society's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the notice issuance and non-participation of the assessee in the earlier proceedings and thus remanded the case for fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841888 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP), CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461), M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009, Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N C
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHAVIR JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.103/PUN/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Tanishka Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Shop No. 2, Profit Plaza, Limba Phata, Talegaon Dabhade, Tal.-Maval, Dist.-Pune-410506 PAN : AAFAT0878B Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Jain Department by : Smt. Shilpa NC Date of hearing : 18-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25-02-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2019-20. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20 under consideration. Based on SFT information available with the Department, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.2,89,75,777/- in its bank account with The Baramati Sahakari Bank Limited during the FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) after following the due procedure as mandated under the provisions of the Act. Statutory notice(s) u/s 148 of the Act followed by 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. For lack of compliance in response thereto as also to the show cause letters/notices and after obtaining information u/s 133(6) of the Act from the said bank that during the year the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.2,89,75,777/- in his bank account and was paid total interest of Rs.6,34,344/- during the year under consideration, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and completed Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 103/PUN/2026, AY 2019-20 the assessment ex-parte on total income of Rs.2,96,10,121/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 09.03.2024. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the aforesaid additions. The assessee filed appeal with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E)/NFAC. In response to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC from time to time, the assessee failed to make any submissions and sought adjournment which resulted in ex-parte decision by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution relying on the decision(s) in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP), CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) and M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. On merits, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO due to the source of deposits remaining unexplained in the absence of any credible documentary evidence furnished by the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) and CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made amounting to Rs. 2,96,10,121/- are illegal and unsustainable in law and the same may please be deleted. 2] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the case ex-parte without waiting for the appellant to furnish the submission and evidences. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have appreciated that the appellant had requested for adjournment of hearing and still the case was rejected without issuing any further notice. 3] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was a credit co-operative society which has maintained proper books of account wherein all the cash deposits transactions were duly accounted for. 3.1] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that alleged cash deposits of Rs. 2,89,75,777/- were sourced out of daily deposits collection from members accepted during the year in the course of its banking business. 3.2] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) grossly erred in taxing entire cash deposit amount without appreciating that it is only the net surplus during the year under consideration which is taxable under the act and not the entire cash deposits. The net surplus for the year was only Rs. 8,07,526/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 103/PUN/2026, AY 2019-20 3.3] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) has further erred in not considering the fact that income of the co-operative society is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and accordingly no income is chargeable to tax. 4] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,34,344/- on account of interest income without appreciating that said income was already recorded in the books of accounts and was also included in the surplus for the year. Thus, no separate addition is warranted for interest income. 4.1] The Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that interest income from co-operative society in the case of the appellant is exempt u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 5] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on record. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the notices were sent by the Ld. AO on the old email id of the assessee which was not regularly accessed by him. The assessee inadvertently missed the notices issued by the Ld. AO without any malafide intention. He further submitted that the process of compiling the data and documents to be submitted before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC took some time due to which the assessee could not furnish the requisite details/documents within the time granted by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and is now in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. From perusal of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’s orders, we observe that he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-participation of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the Ld. AO being unexplained due to the lack of any submissions/ documentation furnished by the assessee, without deciding the issues on merits of the case. It is submissions of the Ld. AR that in the interest of justice the assessee may be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details/documents. The Ld. DR had no objection thereto. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be sent back to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication afresh on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall remain vigilant in accessing to email and responding to the notices of hearing issued by the Ld. AO and provide support to the Ld. AO in terms of submitting the relevant Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 103/PUN/2026, AY 2019-20 details/documentary evidences to substantiate its case, as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. We direct and order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 25th February, 2026. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "