SATYARAJ CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM:

Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of the order dated
28/07/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Assessee is a co-operative credit society and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30/12/2023 declaring total income of Rs. 4,059/-. It is noted from the assessment order that, Ld.AO issued various notices calling upon the assessee to file details. As there was no response from the assessee, Ld.AO also issued show-cause notice dated 15/02/2025 proposing variations to the total income in the hands of assessee. Since there was no reply to that notice, the Ld.AO passed assessment order u/s 144/144B of 2
I.T.A. No. 6539/Mum/2025

the Act on 25/02/2025 proposing variations to the total income in the hands of assessee. Since there was no reply even to that notice, the Ld.AO passed the assessment order u/s 144/144B of the Act on 25/02/2025 assessing total income in the hands of assessee at Rs.
36,65,96,841/-. The addition was made u/s 69A of the Act as alleged unexplained money in the hands of assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before
Ld.CIT(A).
3. The Ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings issued notice on 27/05/2025 fixing the date of hearing on 03/06/2025. It is recorded by Ld.CIT(A) that, assessee sought adjournment on that date.
Accordingly, two more notices were issued on 05/06/2025 fixing the date of hearing on 11/06/2025 and 30/06/2025 fixing the date of hearing 07/06/2025. No response was furnished by assessee on these dates and no adjournment letter were also filed by assessee.
3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) thus passed an ex-parte order by confirming the addition made by Ld.AO.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 13 days.
4. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it has been stated that, the Chairman of assessee was busy with certain medical issues in the family and to visit his native place due to which the delay occurred. The assessee thus prayed for condonation of delay by submitting the reasonable cause by way of an affidavit filed through its Chairman.
4.1. The Ld.AR has submitted that, both the authorities below have not got opportunity to verify the details available with the assessee in 3
I.T.A. No. 6539/Mum/2025

support of its claim. He thus, prayed for an opportunity to be granted under these circumstances, in the interest of justice.
4.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that, assessee was always aware about the litigation and that non-appearance before the authorities below cannot be appreciated. It is submitted that, no reason has been given by assessee for non-appearances and nothing is placed on the record to make out a case of sufficient cause. The Ld.DR thus submitted that, the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.
5. It is noted that, the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal is not unreasonable and, therefore, considering the fact that the issue deserves to be decided on merits, the delay deserves to be condoned.
Accordingly, we condone the delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal.
6. However, it is noted that the assessment order passed by the Ld.
AO is an ex parte order, though the assessee had admittedly received the statutory notices as well as the assessment order and had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed period of limitation. No explanation has been offered either for non-appearance before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings or for the failure to prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Such conduct reflects a casual and indifferent approach towards the statutory proceedings, and the assessee cannot presume that the procedures

4
I.T.A. No. 6539/Mum/2025

prescribed under the statute or the indulgence shown by the Tribunal would be available as a matter of course.
6.1. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/-, so as to impress upon the assessee the necessity of due diligence in complying with statutory proceedings. The assessee shall deposit the said amount with the State Legal Services
Authority and place proof thereof before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon such compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) shall issue notice and decide the appeal afresh on merits, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and after examining the evidence that may be furnished by the assessee, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/03/2026 (ARUN KHODPIA)
Judicial Member
Mumbai
Dated: 16/03/2026

SC Sr. P.S.

5
I.T.A. No. 6539/Mum/2025

Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order

(Asstt.