THE KARAD MEDICOS SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1189/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included details of members and deposits. It set aside the AO's order for de-novo adjudication to consider these evidences.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, had its assessment selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) added an increase in unsecured loans and disallowed deduction under Section 80P. The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was not admitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and whether the addition on account of unsecured loans and disallowance of Section 80P deduction were justified without considering the nature of deposits from members.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 80P,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Mayuresh Doshi
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V., Jt. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 on 19.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16.08.2022.

2.

There was a delay of 41 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

ITA No. 1189/PUN/2026 Findings and Analysis :

3.

We have heard both the parties and studied the records. In this case, the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring total income at Rs.9,47,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2021, 10.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 but the assessee has not complied the notices. In para 4.1 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) has noted that as on the end of the AY 2019-20 the unsecured loan was Rs.13,30,67,741/- whereas unsecured loan as on the end of AY 2020-21 was Rs.13,44,05,504/-. The AO observed that there was increase of Rs.13,37,763/-. Therefore, the AO added Rs.13,37,763/- in the assessment order. The AO also disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested for admission of additional evidences. The assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee submitted that the assessee society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee further submitted that the deposits appearing in the balance sheet which has been considered by the AO as unsecured loan were collected from members. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences and confirmed the addition. In this case, it is a fact that the assessee is a Co-operative Society. It is also fact that the assessee had filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(TA) explaining the deposits and evidences for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. No prejudice will be cost to the

ITA No. 1189/PUN/2026

Revenue if the assessee’s additional evidences would have been verified by the Ld. CIT(A) or the AO as per procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Before us, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed elaborate submission containing list of members and deposits running up to more than 300 pages. The assessee also filed KYC details of those members. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences. In the interest of justice, we admit the additional evidences. However, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of AO to AO for de-novo adjudication in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 18-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.19 15:23:46 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →