CHHATRAPATI NAGRI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA M,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1804/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the CIT(A) and also failed to appear before the Tribunal. However, considering the grounds raised by the assessee regarding cash deposits and disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed a return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions totaling Rs. 96,16,937/- under various sections. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance and failure to provide relevant details.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case, and whether the additions made by the AO were sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 37,Section 68,Section 80P,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 01.12.2025Pronounced: 03.12.2025

I.T.A.No.1804/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-2018) Chhatrapati Nagri Sahkari ITO, Ward-1, Jalna Patsanstha Maryadit, 10, Georai Road, Majalgaon, Beed, vs. Maharashtra PAN : AAAAC 7776 L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None 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

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 03/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 31/12/2019 by the ACIT, Circle, Jalna, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2 ITA.No.1804/PUN./2025 (Chhatrapati Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit) 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), we on perusal of the impugned order observe that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of non-compliance and not filing of the relevant details. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee.

3.

At the outset, ld. DR supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

4.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a cooperative society and return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 31/03/2018 declaring loss of Rs. 1,96,348/-. After the case selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, valid statutory notices were served and assessment proceedings were carried out. Ld.AO, on due consideration of the submissions filed by the assessee, concluded the proceedings making additions totaling to Rs. 96,16,937/- which included disallowance u/s. 37 of the Act at Rs. 39,23,937/- and addition for unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 56,93,000/- and assessed the income at Rs. 94,20,589/-.

5.

Dissatisfied with the disallowances/additions made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Multiple opportunities on eight dates were granted by the Ld.CIT(A) during the period 15/01/2021 to 23/04/2025, but assessee failed to file any submissions or could place any 3 ITA.No.1804/PUN./2025 (Chhatrapati Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit) evidence or explanation against the additions made by Ld.AO. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) proceeded exparte placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) and confirmed the additions made by the Ld.AO.

6.

Before us, assessee has raised grounds of appeal stating that the alleged addition for cash deposits is not maintainable because cash deposits are from its members and secondly the disallowance u/s. 37 of the Act is also uncalled for as the appropriation of expenses are not income, but the same is part of expenses/profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Further, on observing that assessee could not file relevant details before the Ld.CIT(A), we in the larger interest of natural justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. If needed Ld.CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, if additional evidence are filed. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.

4 ITA.No.1804/PUN./2025 (Chhatrapati Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit) Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →