SUBODH SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2017-18
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 04.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. M/s. Subodh Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit
2
2. It appears from the impugned order that in the appellant proceedings, 5 notices were issued to the Assessee, however, the Assesses made no compliance as recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in Para 6. However, the Ld. Counsel Shri Dnyanesh Patade, CA who, on the contrary, by drawing attention of this Court to the page
32 of the paper book which is acknowledgement dt. 07.03.2022 for submission of various document in response to the noticees dated
03.02.2025 and 27.01.2025, which remains unnoticed may be inadvertently or oversight or otherwise by the Ld. Commissioner.
1 Whatsoever it may be, coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that the AO reopened the case of the Assessee by recording reasons for reopening u/s 147 of the Act mainly on the information received that the Assessee has made cash deposits Rs.14,36,500/- during the demonization period i.e. 09 November to 30 December 2016 in the Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Bhatwari and therefore the AO in order to verify such transaction, by issuing statutory notice, show caused the Assessee, who in response to statutory notice submitted before the Ld. AO that it has deposited Rs.9,86,500/- in the aforesaid bank account by collecting deposits from the members.
2 The AO considered the Assessee’s claim qua deposit of Rs.9,86,500/- as correct and made no addition on that count and by subtracting the said amount of Rs.9,86,500/- from the amount of Rs.14,36,500/-, ultimately affirmed the addition of Rs.4,50,000/-, on which the Assessee has stated that this amount was deposited on 8.11.2016 but not on 09.11.2016. 3. Though the Ld. DR. relied on the order passed by the authorities below and refuted the claim of the Assessee but not the M/s. Subodh Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit
3
aforesaid factual aspect that Rs.4,50,000/- was deposited by the Assessee on 8.11.2016 but not on 09. 11. 2016. 4. Considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstance of the case, specific to the effect that the addition is not based on the reasons recorded and/or the period pertains to reopening of the proceeding, this Court is inclined to delete the addition
Rs.4,50,000/- being unsustainable. Consequently, the addition is deleted by allowing the appeal of the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.