HUNNUR SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT HUNNUR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BAGALKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2970/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) as the assessee had a valid reason due to a change in PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The AO reopened assessment for a co-operative society due to alleged unfiled returns and cash deposits. The assessee did not respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment treating cash deposits as unexplained. The assessee later explained the delay in appeal filing was due to obtaining a new PAN and filing returns under it.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained due to a change in the assessee's PAN and if the appeals should be considered on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Veeranna M Murgod, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 2970 & 2971/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hunnur Souhard Credit Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Hunnur, The Income Tax Basaveshwar Complex, Officer, Hunnur, Ward – 2, Jamakhandi, Bagalkot. Vs. Bagalkot – 587 119. PAN: AAEFH8472P APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Veeranna M Murgod, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22-05-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the NFAC, Delhi dated 17/10/2025 and 20/11/2025 in respect of the A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society and the AO had alleged that they have not filed their return of income even though there is a cash deposits into their bank account. The assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notices u/s. 148 as well as

Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 2970 & 2971/Bang/2025 u/s. 142(1) were issued. The assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore a show cause notice was sent through the verification unit by speed post and it was found that the same was delivered to the assessee. Thereafter a show cause notice u/s. 144 was issued and the assessee had not responded to the said notice also. Therefore the AO based on the details available with him had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for both the years. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 142 days and 139 days. In the application to condone the said delay, the assessee had submitted that they got another PAN as the AOP and filed their returns in the said PAN and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the notices issued by the AO as well as the assessment order made in the old PAN number and therefore the said delay has been occurred. The assessee had also mentioned the current PAN number as AAAAH8911N. The Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the said facts and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation and observed that the assessee had not established sufficient cause for filing the appeals with the said delays.

3.

As against the said orders, the assessee is in appeals before this Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had originally PAN in the status of firm and subsequently they got a new PAN with the status as AOP and thereafter the returns were filed in the new PAN showing the deposits made into their bank account and therefore the allegation that the assessee had not explained the source for the said cash deposits is not correct and without appreciating the facts properly. The Ld.AR further submitted that in view of the change in the PAN number, the assessee had not viewed the details in the earlier PAN and therefore the proceedings initiated by the AO as well as the appellate order were not noticed by the assessee and therefore the said delay has been occurred.

Page 3 of 4 ITA Nos. 2970 & 2971/Bang/2025 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not co-operated with the department and also filed the appeal with a huge delays and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeals.

6.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.

We have gone through the appellate order and the reasons stated by the assessee for the said delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). This fact was not disputed by the authorities also. When the assessee is having a new PAN number and filed their return of income in the new PAN, normally they would not have viewed the earlier PAN in the portal and therefore the reasons given by the assessee could not be brushed aside as not a sufficient cause for condoning the said delay.

8.

It is also submitted by the assessee all the cash deposits made into their bank accounts were properly recorded in their books of accounts and also reported to the department while filing the return of income under the new PAN. If the facts are like this, the assessee should have requested the department to cancel the earlier PAN number in order to avoid the complications. If the assessee had cancelled the PAN number, the AO could not have initiated the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.

9.

Considering the merits of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in time and therefore we are condoning the said delays of 142 and 141 days in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore these issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration, in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to produce the necessary documents in support of their claim at the time of hearing.

10.

With the above directions, we partly allow the appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

Page 4 of 4 ITA Nos. 2970 & 2971/Bang/2025 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd May, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →