THE NASHIK JILHA MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,NASHIK V. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

ITA 1373/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited appealing against the orders of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were based on the assessments made under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were initially delayed by 27 days, for which the assessee sought condonation. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh adjudication due to non-submission of details at the CIT(A) level, leading to the dismissal of the initial appeals. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) was influenced by the principles of justice and fairness, acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply previously but providing another opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773646 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, B. N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC), M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. vs. A.Y. 2002-03
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1372 and 1373/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 and 2017-18 The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, 1, 1 Stadium Complex, M.G. Road, Raviwar Karanja, Nashik – 422 001 Maharashtra PAN : AAAAT2793A Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned two appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are directed against the separate orders dated 26.02.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC arising out of respective assessment orders passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 27 days in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. Appellant by : Shri Sanket Joshi (Through virtual) Respondent by : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Date of hearing : 15.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1372 and 1373/PUN/2025 The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited 2 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation applications, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) on the gives dates of hearing and in absence of the submissions ld.CIT(A) affirmed the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, a prayer made for remitting the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but was fair enough in not opposing the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AO) and return of income for A.Yrs. 2016-17 and 2017-18 furnished on 15.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.46,61,040/- and Rs.45,24,620/-. After the case being selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS, ld. Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessments u/s.147 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1372 and 1373/PUN/2025 The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited 3 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act evenly 27.03.2022 and assessed income at Rs.94,59,633/- and Rs.1,35,01,936/- after making addition for undisclosed income at Rs.47,98,593/- and Rs.89,77,316/- for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. 7. In the appeal filed before ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to succeed due to non submission of the details. Observation of ld.CIT is almost common for both the years. However, for the sake of convenience, relevant finding of ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016- 17 is reproduced below : “5. OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND DECISIONS: During the course of appellate proceeding vide notices dated as per above chart the appellant was requested to file reply. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. It can be seen that the appellant has neither submitted any reply nor taken any initiative to respond to any of the notices despite giving number of opportunities in last four years. No request for adjournment was also made. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the ground or is not interested to pursue the appellate proceeding any more. 5.1 The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 6 In this case, the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the records available with me. It is seen that during assessment proceeding also the assessee never complied to the notices and due to failure on the part of the assessee to respond and submit any explanation or evidence assessment was completed as per best judgement of the Ld A.O. and addition amounting to Rs.47,98,593/- was made and the assessee had filed Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1372 and 1373/PUN/2025 The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited 4 this appeal against such order. Although I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case, during the course of appellate proceedings appellant has failed to produce any submission/evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. In the absence of any evidence, whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO has passed an order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and hence, no interference with the order of the AO is called for. As such the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are therefore dismissed. 7. Conclusion: In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 8. From going through the above finding of ld.CIT(A), which has been similarly given for A.Y. 2017-18 also, we find that in absence of proper compliance by the assessee ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. However, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties and also the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore remit all the issues raised in both the appeals for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1372 and 1373/PUN/2025 The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited 5 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 24th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 24th September, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "