CHANNBASAVEESHWAR P K P S SANGHA N YARAGATTI,BELAGAVI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is delay of 66 days in filing of the present appeal. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we

2 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 66 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has passed an EX-PARTE order without giving proper opportunity to the Appellant. 2. Because the Assessing Officer has passed best judgement assessment order and various additions and disallowances made are arbitrary. 3. Because the Assessing Officer has wrongly made additions of Rs.16,88,624/- towards unexplained money. Since the appellant is a primary agricultural cooperative credit society and maintaining the bank account with Belagavi District Central Co op Bank for day to day transactions. The Appellant is maintaining books of accounts and are duly audited. The amount deposited in bank account is not a income of the society but the regular working capital transactions. Hence additions made are erroneous and needs to deleted. 4. Because the Assessing Officer has wrongly made additions of Rs.16,50,000/- as unexplained investment. The Appellant being cooperative society made deposits with District central cooperative bank as per the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The Appellant is maintaining the books of accounts and duly accounted the transactions. The

3 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

said deposit amount is not a income of the society and these deposits are kept out of the collection of deposits from the members of the society during the regular course of activity of the Appellant. Hence additions made are erroneous and the same needs to be set aside. 5. Because the Assessing officer made additions of Rs.1,29,260/- out of the interest income received. The Appellant is a cooperative credit society and accounted such income in the books of accounts and claimed deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, additions made required to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add and or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

4 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

and therefore, the return was treated as invalid. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 06.02.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.34,67,884/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.16,88,624/- on account of unexplained cash deposit/cash credit u/s 69A of the IT Act and addition of Rs.16,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in time deposit u/s 69 of the IT Act and Rs.1,29,260/- on account of interest income. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find

5 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

that it is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, since the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and the investments of time deposit as well as deposits in bank accounts and interest income arising from bank account are duly recorded in books of accounts. Further, it is also the contention of the assessee that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not appearing before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since the notices of hearing were not known to the assessee credit cooperative society and the first appellate order was passed ex-parte for want of prosecution. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and

6 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 19th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.20 11:01:38 +05'30'

7 ITA No.312/PAN/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.