KOLHAR BHAGWATIPUR VAPARI GRAMIN BIGARSHETHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1792/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 December 2025AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 215 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that the delay was not intentional and was due to the untimely death of the assessee's Chartered Accountant due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal further held that, ideally, the matters should be restored to the CIT(A) as they were not dealt with on merits. However, considering the request of the assessee's counsel, the lack of strong objection from the Revenue, and the submission of a detailed paper book containing relevant documentation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the issues back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo assessment. The JAO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kolhar Bhagwatipur Vapari Gramin Bigarsethi Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., is in appeal against orders of the NFAC/CIT(A), Delhi, dated 20/06/2025. These orders arose from assessment orders passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29/03/2022, for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee, a cooperative society, did not file returns for these years. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings and, due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, passed best judgment assessments, making additions for alleged unexplained cash deposits. The appeals before the CIT(A) were filed with a delay of 215 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay nor decide the appeals on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed before the CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, which were delayed by 215 days, ought to have been admitted by condoning the delay, turning on the principles of natural justice and the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The delay was caused by the untimely death of the Chartered Accountant handling the taxation work due to the Covid-19 pandemic, constituting a reasonable cause. The appeals should be admitted. Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order but did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoration. 2. Whether, in light of the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the fact that the CIT(A) did not decide the matters on merits, the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, considering the principles of justice and the availability of relevant documentation. Assessee's contention: The issues raised in the appeals deserve to be restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment proceedings, as the CIT(A) did not deal with the merits. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not oppose the prayer for restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

I.T.A.Nos.1791 & 1792/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kolhar Bhagwatipur Vapari ITO, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar Gramin Bigarsethi Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Kolhar Bhagwatipur, Tal. Rahata, vs. Dist. Ahilyanagar-413710, Maharashtra. PAN : AAIFK 1071 F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, CA For Revenue : Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT (virtual) Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], evenly dated 20/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which are arising out of separate assessment orders u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, evenly dated 29/03/2022 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively.

2 ITA.Nos.1791 & 1792/PUN/2025 (Kolhar Bhagwatipur Vapari Gramin Bigarsethi Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.) 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee commonly stated that for both the appeals pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 are in the case of assessee, which is a cooperative society. Assessee could not appear before the Ld.AO resulting into passing of best judgment assessment and huge additions have been made on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits received from its members. He further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits as the appeals were barred by limitation and Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. He, therefore, prayed that issues raised in the instant appeals deserve to be restored to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo assessment proceedings.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, though supported the order of Ld.CIT(A), but fair enough in not opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee.

4.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee is a cooperative society, has not filed return of income for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17. Based on the information received from the Department for the financial transactions entered into by the assessee, Ld.AO initiated re-assessment proceedings after validly serving statutory notices. Assessee failed to make compliance to any of the statutory notices issued u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Ld.AO passed the best judgment assessments and assessed 3 ITA.Nos.1791 & 1792/PUN/2025 (Kolhar Bhagwatipur Vapari Gramin Bigarsethi Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.) the income at Rs. 1,74,71,990/- and Rs. 4,62,65,921/- for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively.

5.

We further observe that the appeals against the orders of Ld.AO have been filed before the Ld.CIT(A) with delay of 215 days and reasons for delay are mentioned by the assessee in the applications filed before the Ld.CIT(A) along with the reasons mentioned in Form No.35 and one of the main reasons is due to untimely death of CA Sagar Sable on 03/05/2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic who was looking after the taxation work of the assessee. We find that reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit and delay is not intentional and therefore adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 215 days in filing of the appeals before Ld.CIT(A).

6.

So far as merits of the cases are concerned, ideally the matters deserve to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) as the issues on merits have not dealt with by the Ld.CIT(A).

7.

However, on the request of learned counsel for the assessee and there being no strong objection on the Ld. DR’s side and also taking note that assessee has filed a detailed 4 ITA.Nos.1791 & 1792/PUN/2025 (Kolhar Bhagwatipur Vapari Gramin Bigarsethi Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.) paper book running into 78 pages which also includes copy of cash book providing the details of cash received from members of the society which has been deposited in the bank account and there are other information to explain the source of alleged cash deposits, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo assessment. Needless to mention that Ld. JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →