HEX BLOX CO OPERATIVE HSG SOC LTD,KHARGHAR, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL, RAIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2229/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 July 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and non-compliance. The appeal was decided without the assessee's participation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative housing society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of this deduction, stating a lack of documentary evidence. The assessee failed to appear for hearings before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was justified and whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

आदेश /ORDER

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 2016-17 on 25.11.2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 10.12.2018.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in sustaining an addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts as well as law. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in substanting the addition / disallowances made by the Ld. Assessing officer inspite of he

ITA No. 2229/PUN/2025

having appreciating the fact as can be seen from para 4.3 of CIT(A) order that "The AO did not make sufficient efforts to ensure that responses were sought in a reasonable timeframe, particularly since notices were issued close to the time barring date." 3. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.42,85,144/-, without appreciating the fact that Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have called for the details from Saraswat Bank as per provisions of section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as were called for from PMC Bank before taking any adverse view. 4. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge its duty of verifying the facts inspite of fact of interest earned from Saraswat Bank being on record of Ld. Assessing Officer. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds at the time/ before the hearing of the appeal. 6. The appellant therefore prays that the deduction correctly claimed by the appellant not disallowed by Ld. Assessing Officer vide an assessment order though stated to have been passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but practically being an ex-parte order, coupled with the fact of even Hon'ble CIT(A) having failed to carry out exercise of verifying the same from Bank, the matter may please be set aside to the office of Ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to conduct assessment proceedings afresh after offering an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”

3.

On 13.01.2026 and 25.02.2026, the case was adjourned at the request of authorized representative of the assessee. However, no one appeared on 07.05.2026 and 15.06.2026. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment letter has been filed by the assessee. Similarly, today on 22.07.2026 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any

ITA No. 2229/PUN/2025

adjournment letter has been filed. It is also noted that there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing appeal. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative.

Basic Facts : 4. The brief facts of the case as per the statements of facts are as under : “Appellant, a co-operative housing society limited, had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 10/03/2017 declaring its total income of Rs.49,010/- after claiming deduction of Rs.93,77,779/- u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case having been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, notice u/s 143(2) / 142(1) of the L.T. Act, 1961, were issued. However according to Ld. Assessing Officer there being no response from appellant an ex-parte assessment order (though stated to be an order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961) has been passed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer has stated of having issued notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to PMC Bank calling for bank statements, in response to which the PMC bank vide letter dated 28/11/2018 submitted the copy of interest certificate, certifying that an interest amount of Rs.50,92,635/- was credited to appellant's account and accordingly the Ld.. Assessing Officer having considered the same only to be allowable u/s 80P of the 1.T. Act, 1961, has disallowed the balance amount of Rs.42,85,144/- (Rs.93,77,779/- - Rs.50,92,635/-) for want of documentary evidence without having reasonable opportunity of being heard, which fact has even been appreciated by Hon'ble CIT(A) as can be seen from the observations given at para 4.3 of CIT(A) order. Against the said order appellant filed an appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A), however on going through the findings of Hon'ble CIT(A) as given in para 4.5 of appellate order it apparently appears that even in the course of the first appellate proceedings, appellant has not been able to place on record the required documents to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble CIT(A) practically on account of there being disputes/differences between the members of the managing committee to the extent that the dispute/differences resulted an

ITA No. 2229/PUN/2025

administrator having been appointed vide an order dated 13/03/2025 passed by Hon'ble Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, CIDCO Navi Mumbai as a result into even the Hon'ble CIT(A) having sustained the disallowance of an amount of Rs.42,85,144/- for want of supporting documents. It is the said order of Hon'ble CIT(A) which is subject matter of Appeal before your honours on the following among other grounds.”

Findings and Analysis:

5.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed assessee deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs.50,92,635/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted specifically in para 4.5 that no Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet has been filed either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that no documents has been filed before us also. Rather, the assessee has not filed copy of registration issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society to prove that it is a Co- operative Society. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.42,85,144/- as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.

6.

Ironically, the assessee has been putting blame on the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) when it is apparently clear that the assessee has not bothered to file Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and basic documents to prove its that it is a Co-operative Society. However, the assessee has not filed certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. The assessee wants to claim benefit u/s 80P of the Act. It is a primary condition to claim 80P that the assessee should be a Co- operative Society. In this case, the assessee has not bothered to file copy of registration certificate issued by the Assistant

ITA No. 2229/PUN/2025

Registrar, Co-operative Society or any other appropriate authority. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.42,85,144/-. We are aware that the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, though no documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) but as per Income Tax Act, we do not have power of enhancement, hence, we do not intend to comment on the relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) as there is no cross appeal by the Revenue. In these facts and circumstances, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 23-07-2026 Ravi Kumar 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, ‘A’ 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 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →