JAGRUT YUVAK CO OP CREDIT SOC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTION WARD 22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6839/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was essential for a just decision. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner to examine these evidences on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Co-operative Credit Society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(4) which was disallowed. The Assessing Officer also made additions for cash deposits and other credit entries in bank accounts. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner was rejected, with additional evidence also denied admission.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee and affirming the disallowances/additions without proper examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(4),Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri. Amit Gurav, Ld. Sr. DR
Pronounced: 24.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessee, being a Co-operative Credit Society, filed its return of income on 27.03.2018 declaring total income at 1

ITA 6839/MUM/2025 Jagrut Yuvak Co.op Credit Soc Limited

Rs. 93,990/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 21,14,960/- u/s 80P(4) of the Act, return filed was subsequently selected for scrutiny and therefore, various statutory notices were issued. However, the Assessee made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances and considering the material available on record, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, ultimately disallowed the deduction claimed to the tune of Rs. 21,14,960/- and also made an addition of Rs. 34,49,053/- u/s 69 of the Act, Rs. 33,17,000/- being cash deposits and Rs. 1,32,053/- being other credit entries appearing in the bank accounts of the Assessee, namely Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank and Mumbai District Co-operative Bank, during the year under consideration.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions/disallowance by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee filed various documents in the form of additional evidences along with a prayer for condonation of delay, as well as an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules”). The Ld. Commissioner, though considered the application filed by the Assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules, however, not being satisfied with the explanation, rejected the prayer of the Assessee, made under Rule 46A of the Rules and ultimately affirmed the aforesaid disallowances/additions.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe from the application filed under Rule 46A that the Assessee had contended that, being a small co- operative society, it suffered from the unavailability of fully trained staff. It was further contended that the additional material submitted during the first appellate proceedings was not available earlier. We further observe from the paper book filed by the Assessee that various details have been furnished, such as details of money deposited in Maharashtra State Co- operative Bank and Mumbai District Co-operative Bank, confirmations of 2

ITA 6839/MUM/2025 Jagrut Yuvak Co.op Credit Soc Limited

loan repayments, death certificates of subscribers and various other documents, which, in our considered opinion, prima facie appear to be essential for the proper and just decision of the case. We also observe that the Assessee has filed the bank statements of the aforesaid banks for the relevant year, as well as Form Nos. 3CA and 3CB, statement of income and computation of income, and has claimed that the same were made available before the authorities below. However, in our view, the said documents, along with the additional evidences which, as denied to be admitted by the ld. Commissioner, are essential for proper and just adjudication of the case. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice and for just and proper decision of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case and afford an opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim by producing relevant additional evidences, including those, referred to above before the ld. Commissioner, who shall examine the same on merit.

5.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 80P(4)

All 1,638 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →