INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAHAN vs. THE BHOOPPUR CO OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED, BHUPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSCIAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.161/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer The Bhooppur Co Operative Near Delhi Gate बनाम/ Multipurpose Society Limited Opp. GurudwaraNahan Bhupur, Paonta Sahib Vs. Distt. Sirmour (HP) – 173001 Distt. Sirmour (HP) -173025 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABAT-2131-K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. ARs ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 20-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

impugned order. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessee was found deposited cash of Rs.326.40 Lacs in its bank account as maintained with HP State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Distt. Sirmour. However, the assessee did not file return of income. Accordingly, the case was reopened and the assessee was required to explain the source of deposit. However, the assessee remained non- compliant which is evident from para 3.1 of the assessment order. In the result, the impugned deposits of Rs.255.53 Lacs (after deducting turnover of the assessee) was added as unexplained deposits to the income of the assessee. 3. During first appeal, the assessee furnished various submissions and documents to explain the source of cash deposits. The same stood accepted by Ld. CIT(A) and the impugned addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. It clearly emerges that the assessee remained completely non- compliant during assessment proceedings and apparently, it furnished various documents in support of impugned deposits. However, the same were not confronted to Ld. AO by way of remand which is in gross violation of Rule 46A and hence, the grievance of the revenue. This position could not be controverted before us also. No doubt, Rule 46A enables Ld. CIT(A) to entertain additional evidences, however, the impugned order has not recorded any finding that the additional evidence was clarificatory in nature nor did it state that such evidence was filed on the direction of the CIT(A). Rule 46A(2) mandates

recording of reasons for admission of additional evidence and Rule 46A(3) requires granting of reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Since these mandatory requirements have not been complied with, the we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th July, 2026

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 20-07-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH