THE JAWALA CO OPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JHANDEWALAN ,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 63(5), CIVIC CENTRE

ITA 1836/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves The Jawala Co-operative Urban Thrift And Credit Society Limited, which appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi. The primary contention was regarding the addition of Rs.68,82,000 to the assessee's income, attributed to cash deposits during demonetization, which the Income Tax Officer had added under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initially, the CIT(A) upheld this addition while allowing a deduction under section 80P(2) for interest income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the detailed evidence provided by the assessee, which included audited financial statements and cash receipts from members. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination of the evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314430 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHIT SETH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1836/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) The Jawala Co-operative Urban Thrift And Credit Society Limited, 218-19 DDA Commercial Complex, Cycle Market, Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055. PAN-AABAT0924C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(5), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Akshit Seth, CA Department by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A), in short], dated 23.02.2024 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi/20/10842/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in providing credit facility to its members and having interest income. The assessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 27.12.2019 wherein the AO had denied the deduction u/s 80P (2) on the interest income on FDRs at Rs.98,94,285/- and further made additions of Rs.68,82,000/- on account of cash deposit during demonetization in SBN. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order allowed the deduction u/s 80 P (2) to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs.68,82,000/- made on account 2 ITA No.1836/Del/2024 of cash deposit. Against such order, the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.68,82,000/- u/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 towards cash deposit in their Bank account during A.Y. 2017-18 without going into the depth and facts of the case and without giving due opportunity to the assessee society. 2. That the additions made and the denial of benefits and consequent demand is bad in law. 3. The additions made by A.O. for interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D and 234F is baseless, unjustified and without any material on record. 4. That the Principle of mutuality was ignored by the learned assessing officer while passing the assessment order. 5. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or modify any grounds or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the said appeal.” 3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the cash deposit during the demonetization was in parity with the cash deposit in earlier assessment years for which he drew our attention to page 1 & 2 of the PB wherein comparative figures of the cash deposited in various bank account on annual and monthly basis in Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 are tabulated. He further submits that in support of the source of cash, it was explained to AO that the same were out of receipts from the members and assessee has filed copies of the simple cash receipts issued to its member, audited financial statements for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017- 18, copies of the cash books etc. Ld. AR stated that these documents are self- explanatory, however, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the same on merits, has confirmed the additions by making general observations in the appellate order. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of the addition so upheld by ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a credit society and failed to substantiate the source of cash deposited in SBN during demonetization either before the AO or the CIT(A). He therefore, prayed for confirmation of the additions made by the lower authorities. 3 ITA No.1836/Del/2024 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the details filed by the assessee which includes the audited financial statements for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, copies of sample cash receipts issued to its member, copies of ledger accounts, cash books showing receipts from its member, statements of total cash deposited in the year under appeal and in preceding two years and also statement of monthly cash deposited in the year under appeal and in Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 were not considered by Ld. CIT(A). These details are very crucial to decide the issue in hands wherein the assessee claimed that the cash was deposited in SBN during demonetization out of the deposits made by its member. Since, these details have not been considered by ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, we sent back to this issue to file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the details filed by the assessee. Assessee is also at liberty to file all the evidences with respect to the cash deposited in SBN during demonetization. Needless to say that assessee be provide sufficient opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/-/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07/05/2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "