Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative credit society, filed a NIL return claiming deduction under Section 80P. During assessment for AY 2017-18, the AO found unexplained cash deposits, made an addition of Rs. 36,92,400 under Section 68 due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for similar non-compliance despite issuing multiple hearing notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's lack of compliance. Recognizing the principles of natural justice and the assessee's contention of having a strong case on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case with evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance and if the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present its case on merits regarding the addition under Section 68.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 68, 80P, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections.
Laxmi Narcinva Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/se 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assesse has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/sec 80P of the Act of Rs.13,89,693/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the partial details and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and find that there are cash deposits during the F.Y.2016-17 and the assessee was asked to explain the sources of deposits and also a show cause notice was issued, but there was no compliance. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits/ unexplained money and assessed the total income of Rs.36,92,400/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019.
4. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the Laxmi Narcinva Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings. Further the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on various dates referred at page 2 but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/sec 68 of the Laxmi Narcinva Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. Act made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance which cannot be overruled. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Therefore, considering the facts, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on the disputed issue and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal
of the assessee for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2025.