SUVARNA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAH. PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-2, SANGLI, SANGLI

Registry has informed that there is delay of 242 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. It is stated that the impugned order was received on the e-mail id of the ex-employee akshirsagar50@yahoo.com and the same remained to be communicated to the key persons looking after the day to day affairs of the society. Assessee by : Shri S. N. Puranik Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (through virtual) Date of hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2025 Suvarna Gramin Bigarsheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit 2 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the Affidavit, I am satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s.144 of the Act and before ld.CIT(A) certain details remained to be submitted as a result of which the addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.11,56,500/- received from the Members during the demonetization period and deposited in the bank account held with The Sangli DCC Bank Ltd. has been made in the hands of assessee u/s.68 of the Act. He submitted that the assessee possess all the details of KYC of the Members with their Aadhar details and Mobile Numbers who have given the alleged sum to the assessee during the demonetization period. Further, he referred to the following decisions of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that once the assessee successfully proves the Identity and Creditworthiness of Members and genuineness of transactions of having deposited the Specified Bank Notes, then section u/s.68 of the Act cannot be invoked :

ITO Vs. Ambika Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha – ITA No.1104/Pun/2023, order dated 04.06.2024

M/s. Bhagur Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO – ITA No.561/PUN/2022 order dated 03.01.2023 Suvarna Gramin Bigarsheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit 3

ITO Vs. CD Patani Nagri Sahkari Pat Sanstha – ITA No.727/PUN/2022 order dated 28.03.2023

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. I observe that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and it did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18. Based on the information about cash deposit of Rs.11,56,500/- during the demonetization period between 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act to the assessee to file the return of income. Assessee filed the detailed submissions including the financial statements of the Cooperative Society, cash books, bank statements. Based on these details, ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied that the assessee is carrying out the activity of Cooperative Society and the net profit for the year at Rs.14,38,998/- deserves to be allowed as deduction u/s.80P of the Act and has accordingly allowed the said deduction. However, for the cash received from the Members during the demonetization period and deposited in the bank at Rs.11,56,500/- for lack of necessary details, ld. Assessing Officer invoked section 68 of the Act and made the addition. Before ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to explain as to why the amount has been taken from the Members when the same was banned by the Government and further the assessee could not Suvarna Gramin Bigarsheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit 4 furnish proper explanation and any supporting documents. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book running into 120 pages has submitted that the assessee has all necessary details to prove the Identity and Creditworthiness of the Members and genuineness of the transactions along with their Mobile Numbers and Aadhar. In most of the cases, branch cash book has also been furnished in the paper book. Considering all these details and also observing that during the assessment proceedings, assessee failed to furnish the relevant details, I deem it appropriate to remit the impugned issues raised in the grounds of appeal regarding unexplained cash deposit at Rs.11,56,500/- to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for carrying out the denovo assessment proceedings. After considering the details to be furnished by the assessee to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum for which reasonable opportunity shall be granted by ld.JAO. After going through the details, ld. JAO shall decide the issue considering the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the cases referred (supra). Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

अपीलाथ / The Assessee. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,