VISWAS GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI COOP PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE SATARA

There is a delay of 80 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit, explaining therein the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and inter alia engaged in accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to its members. For AY. 2019-20, the assessee did not file its return of income. Based on the information flagged through Insight Portal, it was found that the assessee had made substantial investments and deposits aggregating to Rs. 3,66,30,189/- in its bank account(s) during the relevant AY. The case of the assessee was thus re-opened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 06-03-2023. However, the assessee failed to respond. Statutory notices issued thereafter u/s. 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice issued u/s. 144 of the Act also remained un-complied with by the assessee. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or documentary evidence to substantiate the source of funds and after obtaining confirmations from the concerned banks u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the Ld.AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte qua the assessee, thereby making an addition of Rs. 3,66,30,189/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, vide his order dt. 09-03-2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee submitted that the Ld.AO has wrongly denied the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and has incorrectly invoked section 69A of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee (which are incorporated in para 5.1 of the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC), the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s case was reopened on the issue of investments made in time deposits in its bank account, however, the assessment has been completed by the Ld.AO making the addition in respect of cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Act, which renders the assessment order bad in law. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO due to absence of any details/documents/evidences furnished by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee could not submit the relevant details/documentary evidences due to certain unavoidable circumstances at the relevant time, but it is now in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details/documents. He further placed certain additional evidences on record in support of its claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and therefore, humbly prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh in light of the additional evidences filed by the assessee.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,66,30,189/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. We find that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We observe that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO for the reason that there was no verifiable evidence available in support of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted certain additional evidences in support of its claim. We find that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by catena of decisions of the various judicial forums and hence, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld.AO by filing the requisite details/documents. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.AO for adjudication afresh on merit and as per fact and law in consideration of the additional evidences that may be filed by the assessee during the course of fresh proceedings before him after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We hold and direct accordingly. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 75/PUN/2026:

The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that the present appeal has been filed inadvertently in duplicate and hence, it should be dismissed as infructuous. The Ld.DR had no objection.

In view of the above request of the Ld.AR, we dismiss the present appeal as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

To sum up, appeal in ITA No. 207/PUN/2026 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 75/PUN/2026 is dismissed as infructuous.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////