AUDYOGIK VIKAS NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,TELCO ROAD, CHINCHWAD STATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 9(1), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2435/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Audyogik Vikas Nagari Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Pune. Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Telco Road, Chinchwad Station, Pune- 411019. PAN : AAAJA0324K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Nikita Jadhav Revenue by Shri Vaibhav Madhavrao Dhere : (Virtual) Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Siliguri [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. After going through the condonation application duly supported by an affidavit, we find that the assessee cooperative society has gone into liquidation and official liquidator has been appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Maharashtra. The official liquidator was unware that such an ex-parte order was passed by

2 ITA No.2435/PUN/2026 Ld. CIT(A), however, as soon as he came to know about the ex-parte order, he started proceedings for filling of appeal before the Tribunal for which the registered mobile number and email ID entered on the e-filing portal was required which pertains to the earlier authorized signatory of the assessee society who unfortunately already expired. Due to all the above reasons, the delay was occurred. 3. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and after hearing Ld. DR, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned AO erred in rejecting deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a sum of Rs. 14,46,840 without appreciating that the amount credited to P&L account was not income but mere transfer of reserves. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the Building Fund was appropriation of profits of earlier years, and Transfer of such fund to P&L does not result in real income under the Act. Thus, taxing the same is against the concept of real income theory. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that the assessee claimed double deduction u/s 80P Whereas deduction was claimed in earlier years on profits and for Present year entry is only reclassification of reserves, not fresh income.

3 ITA No.2435/PUN/2026 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer failed to consider that Income must arise from external source Internal fund transfer does not generate taxable income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating that transfer from reserve/fund to P&L is not taxable income. 6. Without prejudice to above ground on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law Even assuming (without admitting) that the amount is income then such income is attributable to business of providing credit facilities to members. Hence fully eligible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer wrongly held that the Loss cannot be considered due to non-filing u/s 139(1). This is irrelevant because the issue is taxability of reserve transfer, not carry forward of loss. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice.” 5. 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 and has furnished its return of income on 10.05.2012 declaring income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.14,46,840/- u/s 80P of the IT Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.02.2014 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.14,46,840/- as against the income of Rs.Nil returned by the assessee. The above assessed income

4 ITA No.2435/PUN/2026 includes addition of Rs.14,46,840/- being disallowance u/s 80P of the IT Act. 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into merits of the case. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the counsel of the assessee that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal, since the assessee could not appear on the dates of hearing and was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not appearing before Ld. CIT(A). 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and also with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as

5 ITA No.2435/PUN/2026 per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences in support of its contention without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 07th day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 07th October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.08 12:14:39 +05'30' आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Siliguri. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.