NANDED ZILLA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,NANDED vs. ITO, WARD (1), NANDED, NANDED

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act.

Registry informed that there is delay of 192 days in filing of the instant appeal before the Tribunal. Affidavit along with condonation application has been filed. Major reasons stated are remote location of the assessee society and also office staff are not well versed with the technicalities of filing the appeal.

After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation petition, we find that there is no intentional delay at the end of assessee and there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 192 days occurred in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC.

The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.59,65,344/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained deposits from unidentified members.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society and the funds received from the Members are utilised for giving loans. The alleged sum has also been received from the Members as deposits. She however admitted that details of the alleged deposits from Members could not be filed before the lower authorities and if an opportunity is granted the same will be furnished to the satisfaction of the lower authorities.

Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The only issue for our consideration is addition made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.59,28,390/- which lower authorities have stated that assessee had failed to explain the source of the said sum. From the assessee side, it has been stated that these are deposits from Members. A perusal of the impugned order as well as the assessment order indicates that assessee failed to furnish relevant details. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met adequately if the issue is restored back to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer before whom the assessee shall furnish the requisite details/evidences to prove that the alleged sum is received from identified Members and details to this effect shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Needless to mention, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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