KPM CENTRAL CO-OP BANK EMP CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHEEPURAM

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.10.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 36 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co- operative credit society registered under the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The assessee has not filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. On the basis of information that assessee had substantial cash transactions in its bank account, the assessee’s case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring ‘nil’ income after claiming deduction of Rs.21,53,983/- u/s.80P of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.2,39,27,356/- by making an addition of Rs.2,17,73,373/- u/s.69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

The ld.AR submitted that the assessment order is on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act and the CIT(A) has also upheld the order of AO by passing an ex-parte order. Therefore, he prayed for one more opportunity to explain its case before the AO. The ld.AR also undertaken to appeal before the AO from time to time and submit the necessary documents and evidence during the assessment proceedings.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed exparte order by considering the information available with the department and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non- participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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