INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. MORAYA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, AHMEDNAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.602/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. Vs. Moraya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Shop No.3, Ambedkar Road, Kundan Nagar, Maliwada, Ahmednagar- 414001. PAN : AAAAM9162E Appellant Respondent C. O. No.08/PUN/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.602/PUN/2025) िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Moraya Nagari Sahakari Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar. Shop No.3, Ambedkar Road, Kundan Nagar, Maliwada, Ahmednagar- 414001. PAN : AAAAM9162E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Eknath Abhang (Virtual) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026

2 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is also in cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the Revenue for adjudication. ITA No.602/PUN/2025 – By Revenue : 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is right in giving relief to the assessee deleting the addition u/s 69A of the Act and holding that the assessee is merely a custodian of money of members of the assessee society without the assessee giving any evidence either before the-AO or before Ld. CIT(A) substantiating that the money belonged to members. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is right in giving relief to the assessee deleting the addition u/s 69A of the Act and holding that the assessee is merely a custodian of money of members of the assessee society without the assessee, giving any evidence either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) substantiating that the money belonged to members and without affording any opportunity to the AO as prescribed in rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding before the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

3 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members and also accepting deposits from them. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the period under consideration u/s 139 of the IT Act. On the basis of information available on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed that the assessee has purchased time deposits of Rs.50,00,000/- and has deposited cash of Rs.3,31,01,915/- in an account other than current account, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In response to above notice, no return of income was furnished, however, the assessee stated that the society has maintained only savings account and all the transactions are routed through savings account of Bhingra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. The assessee also furnished its profit and loss account. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.03.2022 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.3,81,01,915/- as against no return was

4 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3,81,01,915/- being addition u/s 69A of the IT Act towards investment in time deposit and cash deposit in bank account. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the addition and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on the order passed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saidatar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Mumbai in ITA No.1613/Mum/2021 order dated 05.09.2022 by observing as under :- “5.4 On the proper appreciation and evaluation of the order passed by the AO and reply of the appellant, it is seen that the AO considered the entire cash deposit of Rs 3,31,01,915/- and time deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the submission of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant is a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members. To substantiate its claim, the appellant had submitted the bank statement of account maintained with Bhingar Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. Bhingar. In this regard, it is pertinent to analyse the provisions of section 69A of the Act, which reads as under: 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by

5 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. From the above, it is seen that in order to levy tax u/s 69A of the Act, 3 conditions are needed to be satisfied by the AO namely:- a) The appellant is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article. b) Such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any maintained by him for any source of income. c) The appellant offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or the explanation offered by him in the opinion of the AO satisfactorily. In the present case, the appellant society is only custodian of the money of the members of the society. The appellant society cannot be treated as the owner of the money deposited in the bank accounts. Further the accounts of the appellant society are also subjected to audit by the co- operative department as per the Societies Act. It is not the case that the appellant society offers no explanation and source of acquisition of money. Hence in my considered opinion, the provision of Sec. 69A of the Act cannot be applied in the present case as the ingredient for applicability of sec. 69A of the Act is not fully satisfied. 5.5 The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Saidatar Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Sahyadri CHS Ltd. vs ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vide ITA No. 1613/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 dated 05.09.2022 has held in para 9 as under: 9. Thus, provisions of section 69A of the Act are applicable only in the case where the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, In the present case, it is an accepted fact that assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society and in its business it accepts deposits from its members and also gives credit to its members which is repaid by them. The cash/money deposited by its members is further deposited by the Society in its bank account. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the assessee who is a registered Co-operative Credit Society cannot be considered to be the owner of the money, which only belongs to its members and same is retained by the assessee as its custodian"

6 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 5.6 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO had not made out a case calling for addition u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,81,01,915/-. In view of the above discussion, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 6. In result, the appeal is hereby Allowed.” 6. It is the above order against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it was the contention of Ld. DR that the assessee has not furnished return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act regarding section 80P of the IT Act. It was also the contention of Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has allowed the appeal of the assessee by accepting the additional evidences from the assessee for which the Assessing Officer was not given any opportunity. In this regard, Ld. DR was directed to point out the documents which were furnished by the assessee for the first time before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, Ld. DR could not point out any of the

7 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 documents which was furnished as additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC even after being provided specific opportunity in this regard by the Bench. On the other hand, Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that all the documents relied on by the assessee were also furnished before the Assessing Officer and no additional evidence was furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that for assessment year 2015-16 under identical facts the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and the return of income was also not furnished u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, however, the Assessing Officer allowed the benefit of deduction under Chapter VI-A regarding deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act. It was also contended by Ld. AR that under identical facts and similar circumstances, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of other credit cooperative society by extending the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act irrespective of the fact that the return of income was not furnished u/s 139 of the IT Act and it was also held that section 80AC applies from assessment year 2018-19 onwards. In this regard, we find that coordinate bench of this

8 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 Tribunal in the case of Saidatar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (supra) has allowed the appeal of the assessee under identical facts & similar circumstances and the decision was rightly followed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and perusing the above decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Saidatar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is hereby confirmed. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 – By Assessee : 10. Since we have already dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence dismissed. 11. In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.

9 ITA No.602/PUN/2025 C.O. No.8/PUN/2026 12. To sum up, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.01 14:27:33 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.