SIWANA GRAM SEWA SAHIKARI SAMITI LIMITED,BARMER vs. ITO, BARMER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 738/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2017-18) SIWANA GRAM SEWA SAHIKARI INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMITI BALOTRA, 344044 3, SIWANA VAYA BALOTRA, DISTRICT BALOTRA, 344044 PAN No. AACTS 4246 A Assessee by Shri Hemant Lohiya, CA (Physical) Smt. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT (Virtual) Revenue by Date of Hearing 28 / 04 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 29 / 07 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, J.M. The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the assessee/appellant

against the order dated 27.08.2024 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

referred as ‘the Act’) passed by Income Tax Officer, Balotra [for the sake of

convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] by which appeal filed by the

assessee was dismissed.

2 ITA No. 738/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 2. Facts of the case in chronological order may be summarised as that the

assessee/appellant is a cooperative society engaged in regular business activities

and return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by him electronically on 4th

November, 2017 by declaring total income of Rs. Nil and thereafter the case was

selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued in which the

assessee/appellant failed to comply with the said notices and assessment order

completed u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the cash deposit of Rs. 26,80,000/- in the

bank account were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the

Act.

days and the condonation for the same, appellant filed affidavit in which

submitted that his brother in law Shri Chain Singh has been on bed for many

months and ultimately by and for which he got depressed and remained in

tension and forgot to file the reply. In the interest of justice and preferring the

3 ITA No. 738/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 disposal of appeal and issue therein on its merits alone, we inclined to condone

the same.

erroneously made addition of cash deposit without rejecting the books of account

and verification of nature of justice, without providing proper opportunity as the

appellant was unable to appear due to illness and medical emergency of relative

and in this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that this impugned assessment was

completed ex-parte and thereafter first appellate authority dismissed his appeal

simply for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merits which is

contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, and as per

above provision, the appellate authority duty bound to state the points for

determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decisions. It is also

submitted that the appellant did not get effective opportunity to produce books

of account, cash book and supporting evidence to explain the source of deposits

and prayed for restoration to the file of the Ld. AO.

4 ITA No. 738/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on impugned order.

record, we find that if one more opportunity provided to assessee then object of

justice may be fulfilled to some extent and for this purpose, we are inclined to

remit back the matter to the Ld. AO with the direction to decide the matter afresh

after affording sufficient and meaningful opportunity to assessee/appellant and

to pass order in accordance with law and simultaneously, we direct the

assessee/appellant to cooperate in the proceedings.

Order pronounced on 29/07/2026 under Rule 34(4), in accordance with the ITAT Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29/07/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS

5 ITA No. 738/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,