BHOOMI GARDENIA CO OP HSG LTD,RAIGARH vs. ITO PNE-W (81) (1), RAIGAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 634/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 June 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details. The assessee was directed to submit these details without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Co-operative Housing Society, failed to file its return of income. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- under section 69 for unexplained investment, along with the surplus income. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under section 69 for unexplained investment was justified without properly appreciating the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to explain the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.634/PUN/2026 Assessment year : 2019-20 Bhoomi Gardenia Co Op Hsg Ltd ITO, Ward 81(1), Panvel Plot No.7, Sector 17, Kalamboli Vs. Node S.O., Kalamboli Node, Raigarh – 410206 PAN: AAEAB0544P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Department by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of hearing : 16-06-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-06-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.01.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2019-20.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and has not filed its return of income. Information was available with the department that the assessee had made time deposits of Rs.1,04,00,000/- and has not filed its return of income. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) after obtaining the necessary approval from the competent authority. An order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2023 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023 with the approval of the competent authority requiring the

2 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

assessee to file return of income within 30 days. However, the assessee preferred not to file its return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire. The assessee vide its submission dated 13.11.2023 furnished copy of bank statement, copy of computation of income and statement of income and stated that the assessee is a Co-Op. Housing Society registered under Maharashtra Co-Op. Societies Act 1962 having registration No.-NBOM/CIDCO/HSG/(TC)/ 6818 JTR/ 2016-17 dated 07-02-2017. The source of income was explained to be out of monthly collection of maintenance from its members and interest on Fixed Deposits with Co-Op Banks. It was submitted that the assessee does not conduct any business.

3.

However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not furnish details of source of income along with cash flow statement, sources of time deposit with corroborative evidence and copy of registration certificate along with other details. He, therefore, made addition of Rs.1,04,00,000/- u/s 69. Since there was surplus of Rs.1,41,263/- as per Income and Expenditure Account, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,05,41,263/-.

4.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

3 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: In this appeal the assessee has taken the following original grounds of appeal independently and without prejudice to one another. 1) The impugned appellate order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO), which is bad in law, arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and disregarding the additional evidences produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings without giving any cogent reasons, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,04,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment, despite the

4 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

assessee having duly explained the nature and source of the investment (being maintenance collection collected over the time). 4) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and merely relied upon the observations and findings of the Assessing Officer, which were based on incomplete facts due to limited compliance during the assessment proceedings. 5) The appellant craves leave to delete or to modify, alter or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.

6.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee has filed certain additional evidences substantiating that the term deposits are out of maintenance charges collected from the society members. However, he has not gone through the same. He further submitted that the case was not properly handled by the assessee society since its members are not well versed with the income tax proceedings. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details.

7.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that despite sufficient opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee failed to substantiate the case by filing the requisite details. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be upheld and the appeal filed by the assessee be dismissed.

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed

5 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of the requisite details to his satisfaction the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 144 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,05,41,263/- by making addition of Rs.1,04,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act and bringing to tax the surplus income of Rs.1,41,263/- as per Income and Expenditure Account. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the term deposits of Rs.1,04,00,000/- is out of the amount collected from the members towards society maintenance charges and there is no element of profit. It is also his submission that since the committee members of the society are not well versed with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the case could not be explained properly. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

6 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 22nd June, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.06.22 18:15:48 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

7 ITA No.634/PUN/2026

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 19.06.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 22.06.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before 3 JM/AM the Second Member Draft discussed/approved by 4 AM/AM Second Member Approved Draft comes to the 5 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to 9 the Office Superintendent Date on which file goes to the 10 A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →