JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
24.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds:
Ground l. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition of R
Agents as Un
Ground2. Tha the commissio to the appell expenditure
Ground3. Tha confirming th though the f genuine and available on r unexplained a 2. Briefly stated, th operative Society, is facilities to its memb the relevant assessm of (-) ₹37,482/-. Th accordingly, statutor
(hereinafter referred with.
2.1 During the cour
Officer(AO) noticed expenditure of ₹56,0
agents for collection
Assessing Officer req such members/non- commission expendit opportunities, the as Jay Maharashtra

Rs. 56,09,642/- on account of Commis explained expenditure u/s 69C. Ground at the Ld CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciat on was paid to various Agents who mobi lant and being genuine was allowable at without prejudice, the Ld CIT (Appe he addition as Unexplained Expenditu facts before him proved that the exp d were made to persons whose full record and that there was no case of expe and the source not proved.
he facts of the case are that the engaged in the business of p bers. The assessee filed its retur ment year on 04.02.2021, declar e said return was selected fo ry notices under the Income to as “the Act”) were issued and rse of assessment proceedings that the assessee had claim
09,642/- stated to have been n of daily deposits from its quired the assessee to furnish
-members and to justify the ture with supporting evidence. D sessee failed to furnish any cog
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
2
ssion paid to te the fact that ilsed business e as business eals) erred in ure u/s 69C penditure was details were enditure being assessee, a Co- providing credit rn of income for ring a total loss r scrutiny and,
-tax Act, 1961
d duly complied
, the Assessing med commission paid to certain members. The h the details of allowability of Despite repeated gent explanation or verifiable materia notice dated 16.08.2
said commission.
2.2 In response, the was less than 5% of therefore, being negl was further contende
TDS deducted was produce the relevant nor did it furnish any commission agents. I
Assessing Officer dis added the same to th
3. Aggrieved, the ass
Ld. CIT(A). Before the account reflecting co not produce the ba agents. In the absen
CIT(A) confirmed the “6.3 First of tax Act which "Cash credit
68. Where an Jay Maharashtra l in support of the claim. A fi
022 was issued, proposing disa assessee submitted that the c the aggregate deposits of ₹11,38
igible, the same ought not to b ed that a list of agents along wi submitted. However, the as t bank statements evidencing s y agreement or written contract
In the absence of such supporti sallowed the expenditure of ₹5
he income of the assessee.
sessee carried the matter in ap e appellate authority, the assess ommission payments on various ank statements or any agreem nce of credible documentary ev disallowance observing as unde all it is pertinent to discussed Section 68
h reads as under:
ts.
ny sum is found credited in the books of a Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
3
inal show-cause allowance of the ommission paid
8,84,394/-, and be disallowed. It ith the details of sessee did not such payments, with the alleged ing material, the 56,09,642/- and ppeal before the see filed a ledger s dates, but did ments with the vidence, the Ld.
er:
of the Income n assessee maintained f explanation a offered by h satisfactory, t the income of Provided tha company in w sum so credit share premiu explanation of be not satisfa
(a) the perso recorded in th about the nat
(b) such exp aforesaid has Provided furt apply if the p recorded, is a referred to in In view of providereason funds, therefo remained une of Rs. 4,31.8
treated as un the income of 4. The assessee h the outset, the Ld. co a delay of 150 days of delay along with a order of the Ld. CIT portal, and no physi unaware of the chan
Jay Maharashtra for any previous year, and the assess about the nature and source thereof or th him is not, in the opinion of the Asse the sum so credited may be charged to f the assessee of that previous year:
at where the assessee is a company which the public are substantially interes ted consists of share application money, m or any such amount by whatever nam offered by such assessee-company shall actory, unless—
on, being a resident in whose name s he books of such company also offers a ture and source of such sum so credited; a planation in the opinion of the Asse s been found to be satisfactory:
ther that nothing contained in the first person, in whose name the sum referred a venture capital fund or a venture caplia clause (23FB)of section 10."
the above discussion, as the assess nable explanation to the aforementioned fore, the said credit entries in the books explained, Hence, the difference in bad de
805/-[Rs.29,00,000/07 Rs: 24,68,195/
nexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act f the assessee.
(Addition: Rs has preferred the present appea ounsel for the assessee submitt in filing the appeal. A petition an affidavit has been filed, exp
T(A) was served only through ical copy was dispatched. The ge in the mode of service, becam
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
4
see offers no he explanation essing Officer, income-tax as (not being a sted), and the share capital, me called, any be deemed to such credit is an explanation and essing Officer proviso shall d to therein is al company as see could not bad debt loan s. of accounts ebt loan funds
- ] are being and added to s.4,31,805/-)”
al before us. At ted that there is for condonation laining that the the Income-tax assessee, being me aware of the appellate order only u was contended that t but occasioned due t orders.
The Ld.
condonation of delay
4.1 We have consid considered opinion, constitutes “sufficien
Limitation Act, 1963
the Act. Accordingly, is condoned, and the 5. On merits, th commission expendit is that its members c in order to recover t collects daily depos impugned commissio amount of deposits deducted at source t available on Paper B payments ranging fro against annual colle lakhs to crores. A lis under:
Jay Maharashtra upon receipt of a penalty show- the delay was neither deliberate to the changed procedure of co
Departmental
Representative
.
dered rival submissions on thi the explanation tendered by nt cause” within the meaning of , as applicable to appellate pro in the interest of substantial ju appeal is admitted for adjudica he dispute pertains to the d ture of ₹56,09,642/-. The case comprise small vendors and bu he loans/credit granted to them its through appointed agents on has been paid. A list of 17 s s collected, the commission thereon has been furnished befo
Book page 4. The details rev om a few thousand to several la ection of the deposits in the st of those commission agents is Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
5
-cause notice. It e nor intentional mmunication of opposed the is issue. In our y the assessee section 5 of the oceedings under ustice, the delay ation on merits.
disallowance of of the assessee usinessmen, and m, the assessee
, to whom the such agents, the paid, and tax ore us, which is veal commission akhs of rupees , range from Rs.
s reproduced as SR.f
JO IAGENTNAME
Address

1
NITESH RAMESH
MESTRY
Shakti
Room N
Mumba

2
SUNITA NAVNATH
NIPANE
Mhanan
Society
Nagar 3
Thane-4

3
ARCHANA GANESH
SURYAVANSHI
306 H W
Residen
Morega
401209

4
VILAS NIVRUTI
BONDRE
|Sal Wa
Camp N
Mumba

5
ISARIKA SATISH
SHINDE
Laxman
Numbe
Turbe,
400705

6
MILIND
CHANDRAKANT
SOGAM khetwa
Chanda
Mumba

7
SMITA PRAKASH
BENDRE
44 Kab
Numbe
M Marg
Mumba

8
SURESH SHRINAG
5HINDKAR
Room N
Society
Mumba

9
(AMAKANT RAJNATH
ADAV

402 Sh flinnapu
3hayan

WSHREE PRASHANT f 10RAWALE
Hanum
Compou
Jivalap
Mumba

Jay Maharashtra s
PAN NO ANNU
COLL of DE

Niwas Khetwadi 6th Lane
No. 15, first floor, Khetwadi ai-400004
BXAPM7598D
5,53, nda Co-Op Housing
, B Wing, Yashodhan
3rd Floor, Thane west
400606
ASXPN0903E
2,64,

Wing, Shree Ganesh ncy, Veer Mata Jijae Nagar aon, Nalasopara East -
9
BAVPD8229C
1,66, adi, Tell Lane, Transit
Number 5, Andheri East ai- 400093
A00PB4510N n Hira Apartment, Room r 203, Sector Number 22,
Sanpada, Navi Mumbai
5
EQGPS7804Q
95,28

adi 4th Cross Lane, an Bhuvan, Khetwadi ai 400004. BFKPS5528F
5,66, i Bhai Building, Room r 11, 2nd Floor, Sant Sena g, 2nd Kumbharwada ai 400004
AQDPB2172K
67,43

Number 127, Reva Housing
, 3rd Floor, Karanjale, Navi ai, Panvel
AUNPS7386L
1,54, ri Balaji Krupa Apartment, urna Estate Indralok 6, ndar East, Thane 401105. AALPY9526E
62,31

man Chawl, Pande und, toom Number 14, ada Road, Jorivali East, ai
DDDPM9033G
2,20,

Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
6
UAL
LECTION
EPOSITS
COMMISSION
EARNED @
3%
TDS 5%

980
16,620

58,033
7,93,742 1
38,342

58,135
4,99,745
23,866

7,18,227
34,085

8,625
2,85,857
13,615

100
16,984
'

3,440
2,02,303
9,639

79,950
4,64,400
22,371

1,000
1,86,930
8,885

47,495
6,61,424
30,757

11
4NDANA RUPAJI
KESHVE uithone
Marg, J
ShivajiN
East, M

12
JPESH SURESH
DEVGADE P
C
R andura hawl, M
Mira oa

13
JPALI HANMANT
SHINDE anu Pad
Kandiva

14
ROHIT RAMDAS
GHORPADE
Ganesh
Yashodh
400606

15
RAGINIJAYWANT
SHINDE
Ashara M
Nagar Th

16
TANAJI MURUDHAR
KOLI
Jadhava number
East, Mu

17
SACHIN LAXMAN MANE 05 B Sid
Road, Bo

da, Hanuman Nagar ali ast Borivali 400066
DEAPS9344P
1,88,

Apartment, 4th floor han Nagar, Thane West
CWRPG6253Q
81,98

Metro Tower 3005, Vartak hane West 400606
DXDPS2687J
34,60

aji Yadav Chawl, Room
6/8, Devala Pada, Borivali umbai 400066. AVUPK1869N
3,00,2

dhhivlnayak Chawl, Data Pada orivali East Mumbai 400066
BTKPM6676C
57,35
Total
18,69
roduced, for the first time befo evidencing payment of comm essee referred to said bank st he payment of commission to his material was not produced b tutes additional evidence.
been submitted that the Asses otice, only questioned the nts to non-members by rely
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
7
77,190
3,68,316
17,465

2,695
2,99,783
14,004

16,458
5,64,496
25,251

,330
2,45,950
11,598

,200
1,03,807
4,652

230
9,007

,002
1,72,051
8,602
,87,743
56,09,642
2,63,132
ore us, copies of mission. The Ld.
tatement of the the agents for before the lower ssing Officer, in allowability of ying upon the judgment of the Hon
Bank Ltd. & Ors. v.
dated 12.01.2021). H the ground of lack adequate opportunity
5.4 Regarding copy
Ld. counsel for the were entered into in to produce all the co for verification of clai necessary evidence th
5.5 The Ld. counsel restored, the assess agents before the genuineness of servic
5.6 In view of the fo assessee has now pr additional evidence a verification, we are requires fresh exami the orders of the lowe the Assessing Office commission paymen
Jay Maharashtra n’ble Supreme Court in Mavilay
CIT (Civil Appeal Nos. 7343 &
However, the final disallowance of supporting documents, wi y to the assessee to substantiate of agreement with the commiss assessee submitted that no su writing and therefore, the asses ommission agents before the A im of the services rendered by t hereof l has given an undertaking that see shall produce the concern
Assessing Officer for verifi ces rendered and the payments oregoing, and having regard to t roduced bank statements for t and has undertaken to produce of the considered opinion th ination. In the interest of justic er authorities and restore the is er, who shall verify the genu nts, after affording adequate
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
8
yi Service Coop.
& 7350 of 2019, e was made on ithout affording e its claim.
sion agents , the uch agreements ssee was willing
Assessing Officer them along with , if the matter is ned commission fication of the made.
the fact that the he first time as e the agents for hat the matter ce, we set aside sue to the file of uineness of the opportunity of hearing to the asse produce the agents assessee on merit is a 6. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (SUCHITRA RAGHU
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 09/09/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Jay Maharashtra ssee. The assessee shall coop as undertaken. The ground accordingly allowed for statistica the appeal of the assessee nced in the open Court.
S
UNATH KAMBLE)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.
9
perate fully and raised by the al purposes.
is allowed for d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai