NAVNATH GRAMIN BIGAR SHATHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

Registry has pointed out that appeals before this Tribunal are barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeals with delay of 48 and 78 days respectively. In support, assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason which led to delay. On due consideration of the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay in filing of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) and even before the Assessing Officer also assessee could not furnish the details. She further submitted that the asessee is a Cooperative Society and the alleged cash deposits are from its Members and that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.80P of the Act. She further submitted that ld. Assessing Officer has added gross receipts as well as time deposits and the assessee should be subjected to tax only on the net income and not on the gross receipts. She therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be provided setting aside the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

Tersely the facts of the case are that the assessee in an AOP and has not filed the return for A.Y. 2019-20. Based on the information available with the Department that assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.3,96,04,380/-, case of the assessee reopened by way of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. There was no compliance from the side of assessee to various notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the event, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act treating sum of Rs.3,26,04,380/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.70,00,000/- (time deposits) as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to appear on the given dates of hearing. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution merely confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned exparte order passed by ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members. At the time of hearing before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated with reasonable cause that assessee could not plead its grounds before the lower authorities and prayed for affording one more opportunity. On perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of ld.CIT(A), we find there is no effective representation from the side of assessee. Considering the prayer made by the assessee and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, we set-aside the impugned order to the file of ld.JAO for denovo adjudication Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld. JAO is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.2860/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is against the levy of penalty u/s.272A(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the penalty appeal also like that of quantum appeal stating that the assessee has not made any submissions to corroborate the Grounds of appeal. Since we have remitted the issue of quantum addition to the file of ld.JAO, the penalty being dependent on the quantum and consequential is also restored to the file of ld.JAO for denovo adjudication with similar directions given in ITA No.2681/PUN/2025. Ld. JAO shall adjudicate the quantum addition first and then decide the penalty in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,