RAIGAD DARSHAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 1.37.27,811/-made by the Learned AO Instead of Rs. NIL, by -Disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 55,87,311/-claimed u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 -Addition of Rs. 81,40,500/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credits.

Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in rejecting Appellant's appeal on account of a delay of 333 days in filing an appeal before him. The appellant contends that 2 -Demise of former tax counsel, Mr. Shinde, a month before the conclusion assessment proceedings. -Appellant become aware of demand upon adjustment of refund and further, appointed a new tax counsel. -As such, Delay of 333 days ought to have been condoned. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that appellant has been claiming this deduction in past many years and as such, considering the principle of consistency deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 is allowable. 4. The appellant contends that interest income derived from its investments held with various Co-operative banks and other financial institutions is eligible for deduction u/s 80P. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant is required to keep fixed deposits only to ensure adherence to the statutory requirements. 5. Appellant contends that appellant can transact only with its members, which is as per the byelaws and therefore appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the ITA, 1961 on surplus / interest income earned from fixed deposits with co operative bank. 6. Appellant contends that, appellant being a co-operative society deals in providing cash credits to its members and all transactions are genuine, the learned AO ough not to have made an addition u/s 68 as unexplained credit amounting to Re 81,40,000 for increase in unsecured loans during the year pertains to the time to tim deposits by the members. 7. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/clarify/explain/modify/enhance /delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.

At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 333 days in filing of the appeal and has dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. Prayer made to condone the delay and remit the issue to the merit of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. counsel for the assessee stating that the delay is huge and properly not explained by the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an association of persons and e-filed return on income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 31.12.2020 and the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 144B completed on 09.09.2022