DK 140 UTHANGARAI PUESHES TEACHERS & EMP. CO-OP THRIFT & CREDIT SCOIETY LTD.,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRISHNAGIRI

We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had held that when an appeal was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground of limitation, the fee payable for further appeal before this Tribunal, was only 500/- under clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. In our opinion, there is not much difference between an order of CIT(Appeals) which is not on merits, but dismissing an appeal whether on account of limitation or on account of non-appearance of the parties. In this view of the matter, we admit the appeal of the assessee’’.

In view of the above decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the assessee on payment of appeal fees at ₹.500/- is admitted for adjudication.

We note that according to the Assessing Officer the assessee admitted NIL income and claimed deduction of ₹.38,42,644/- under section 80P of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and issued various statutory notices including show- cause notice as reflected at page 2 of the assessment order. However, there was no compliance from the assessee. Considering the details collected from the ITR, balance sheet, profit & loss account, Form 3CB (audit report under section 44AB of the Act), the Assessing Officer noted that the capital investment/fund for ₹.1,89,68,890/- reflecting in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2020 has been introduced during the year itself. Since the assessee failed to provide the source of capital introduced during the year, the Assessing Officer treating the amount of ₹.1,89,68,890/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.09.2022. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) or filed any written submission or documentary evidences in support of the grounds raised by the assessee.

The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. submits that non-compliance to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor wanton. He vehemently argued that the assessee society is located in remote place and most of the statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued during nation- wide lockdown for Covid-19 pandemic and due to lack administrative assistance, the assessee could not furnish any reply to the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR undertakes to put appearance and furnish complete details and thus, prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to prosecute his case before authorities below.

The ld. DR Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order and para 6 of the impugned order and argued that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee could not furnish any explanation or documentary evidence in support of grounds raised by the assessee.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the Assessing completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.09.2022 by treating the capital introduced during the year of ₹.1,89,68,890/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). As per para 6 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) issued hearing notices dated 10.11.2022, 27.06.2024, 17.09.2024, 06.11.2024 and 21.01.2025, but, however, neither any reply was furnished nor any adjournment was sought for by the assessee. On perusal of the impugned order and assessment order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to various notices/show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) and the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of additions involves under section 68 of the Act. We note that in his written submissions, the ld. AR undertakes to put his appearance and furnish complete details to substantiate the claims of the assessee and prayed for affording one more opportunity. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh on merits in accordance with law by affording one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has liberty to file the written submissions/ documentary evidences, if any, before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2025 at Chennai.