SHRI BHOOTESHWAR PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SIRSI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SIRSI, SIRSI

ITA 683/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's observation in Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash regarding litigant vigilance, the Tribunal found the assessee to be an innocent litigant. The payment of appeal fee within the period, the society's remote location, dependence on the consultant, and prompt action upon discovery of non-filing distinguished it from the cited case. The Tribunal applied the principle of liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' from Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and the recognition of innocent litigants in Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. to grant relief in the interest of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,50,500/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be upheld. Following the decisions in Sri Shivakumara Swamy Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, the Tribunal ruled that the cash deposits, representing amounts received from members towards loan repayments and savings account deposits, which were duly recorded in the books and explained, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act merely because they were in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during demonetisation. The AO was directed to delete the addition. The ground of appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Bhooteshwar Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2017-18, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 207 days. The assessee, a society in a remote location, explained the delay was due to its local tax consultant facing personal difficulties following his mother's demise and the practical issues in engaging a Bengaluru-based counsel. The assessee had paid the appeal fee on 24.07.2025, believing the consultant would file the appeal. They became aware of the non-filing only when recovery proceedings were initiated in December 2025. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has sufficient cause to condone the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances presented by the assessee and the precedents cited. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made under section 68 of the Act by treating cash deposits of Rs. 30,50,500/- made during the demonetisation period as unexplained credit. Assessee's arguments: For issue 1: The delay was due to the tax consultant's personal difficulties and practical issues in engaging a new counsel, not intentional or deliberate. The assessee acted in good faith, paid the appeal fee, and took prompt steps upon discovering the non-filing. The delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, citing Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash and Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. For issue 2: The cash deposits represented amounts received from members towards loan repayments and savings account deposits, duly credited to their accounts. The identity and genuineness of transactions were established. The amounts, once part of regular transactions, could not be reassessed under section 68, citing Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO and other precedents. Revenue's arguments: For issue 1: The assessee had not filed the appeal within the prescribed time, and the petition for condonation of delay should be rejected.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. H, JCIT

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the National Faceless Appeal Centre-Delhi (hereafter, the Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) for the A.Y. 2017-18 vide order dated 20.05.2025. 2. At the outset, we not

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →