GURUDATTA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 51/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that while the assessee made partial compliance, it failed to effectively pursue the matter before the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. Considering the assessee's prayer, the principles of natural justice, and to ensure fairness, the ITAT decided to set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was granted liberty to adduce all supporting documents for cash deposits, withdrawals, and interest income. The CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the AO for admitting additional evidence. The assessee was also directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, an Association of Persons, is an appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune. The assessment year under consideration is 2018-19. The appeal challenges an order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which affirmed an assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made additions of Rs.1,31,58,600/- for cash deposits and Rs.38,530/- for interest income, totaling Rs.1,31,97,130/-, on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide details regarding the source of cash deposits and other interest income. The assessee had not filed a return of income initially but filed one after the case was reopened. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal mainly for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, thereby not adjudicating the merits of the case, particularly concerning the eligibility for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that due to reasons beyond its control, there was non-compliance. It further contended that the CIT(A) did not accept additional evidence furnished under Rule 46A, leading to an ex-parte order without effective adjudication on merits. The assessee, being a Credit Cooperative Society, is eligible for deduction under section 80P. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 38,Section 80P,Section 46A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 03.09.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 04.11.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) and has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the information available on the Insight Portal of the Department, it came to know that assessee has made cash deposits, cash withdrawals and received interest income from the various bank accounts maintained by the assessee and the sum aggregating Rs.1,70,27,750/- has escaped escapement and based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened. Pursuant to 2 Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit

reopening, statutory notices u/s.148 and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. Assessee furnished reply in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and has furnished the Income Tax Return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.04.2022. On due consideration of the details furnished by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.1,31,58,600/- on the ground that assessee failed to furnish the details regarding the source of cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act. He also made addition of Rs.38,530/- for the interest income other than interest on securities. Income assessed at Rs.1,31,97,130/-.

3.

Dissatisfied assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) contending which came to be dismissed mainly for non-prosecution and merely affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal contending that the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society and is eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act.

4.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee there was non-compliance. Further, ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the additional evidences furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A. Therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the exparte order passed by ld.CIT(A) as there is no effective adjudication on merits of the case.

5.

Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the record placed before us. There is no dispute that the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society and assessee has made partial compliance before the authorities below but however failed to effectively pursue the matter. Further, a perusal of impugned exparte order also reveals that ld.CIT(A) has not accepted the additional evidences furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,

3 Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit

1962.

However, considering the prayer made by the assessee and in the interest of principles of nature justice and fair to both the parties, we deem it appropriate to remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all documents in support of its case substantiating the cash deposits, cash withdrawals and the interest income and for admitting additional evidences, ld.CIT(A) shall call for the remand report from concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officeer. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced on 15th day of October, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 15th October, 2026. Satish

4 Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.25 10:25:31 +05'30' ////

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →