SHREE JYOTIRILING GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD - 3, SANGLI

There is a delay of 69 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining 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 for AY 2018-19, the assessee did not file its return of income. Based on the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee had made large cash deposits of Rs.4,39,74,248/- in bank accounts during Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19 under consideration. Since the source of the cash deposits remains unexplained, the case of the assessee was

Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee filed appeal with a delay which was condoned by him. On merits, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO by observing as under : “5. It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner, a number of notices/communications / correspondences were made through ITBA portal to the appellant, viz., communications dated 01.03.2024, 17.02.2025, 07.03.2025, 04.06.2025 and 20.08.2025. However, there have been no compliances from the part of the appellant till date. There is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non-compliance of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed of, ex-parte, primarily on the basis of documentation available on record. The appellant has failed to avail the opportunity to file / furnish the submissions / documents in support of the grounds of appeal though the appellant was offered for sufficient opportunity to file / furnish the submissions during the course of appellate proceedings. Furthermore, it is pertinent that the appellant has not sought any adjournment during the appellate proceedings. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order. The Assessee has not rebutted the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order while assessing the total income. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.”

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal ex-parte without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of interest received from other cooperative of Rs. 7,75,762/- to income and not granting deduction u/s 80P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the appellant is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of its business of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has completed the appellate proceedings ex-parte qua the assessee due to non-compliance of the notices of hearing issued by him. He submitted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC were inadvertently missed out and there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee for remaining non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. She submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing all the relevant details/documentary evidences. She therefore humbly prayed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the impugned issue afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that both the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as well as the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte qua the assessee. The Ld. AO completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,63,11,258/- thereby making addition of Rs.4,55,35,496/- on account of credits/deposits in banks u/s 69A of the Act and addition of Rs.7,75,762/- on account of interest income earned from investments with other Co-operative banks as taxable under the head „income from other sources‟. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the Ld. AO for the reason which we have reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Admittedly, there was non- compliance to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that such non-compliance was not intentional but occurred owing to the reasons cited above. She submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and has humbly prayed for grant of an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite details/documentary evidences in support of its claim. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest justice, to restore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.