OM SAI RAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide explanations to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant two more opportunities to submit the required details and documents. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further proceedings.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made two additions: one disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and another for cash deposits of Rs. 12,84,841 u/s 69A during demonetization. The appellant failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to dismissal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The appellant then appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above stated appeal, the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO for short) made two additions, first one relating to not allowing deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and other one being addition u/s. 69A relating to cash deposits made into the bank account during demonetization period.
The Ld. AO gave show-cause notice on both the counts and gave an opportunity to the appellant before making addition/disallowance. As there is no reply from the appellant, deduction claimed was disallowed and cash deposits was added.
3. Before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the Ld. CIT(A) for short) also there is no response from the side of appellant even though four opportunities were given to the appellant. Due to non- attendance on the part of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and non-compliance of notice.
“Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A), appellant filed further appeal to the ITAT with following grounds of appeal :- Being aggrieved by the order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961, passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer. Ward 31(2)(4). Mumbai, upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, this appeal petition is being submitted on the following grounds, which it is prayed may be considered independently without prejudice to one another.
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not allowing deduction u/s, 80P(2)(a)(i) on ignoring the fact that the whole of the income of the appellant is eligible tor the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has further erred in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in directing the addition of Rs. 12,84,841 u/s 69A of cash deposits made in the bank accounts during the period of demonetization ignoring that the source of cash deposited was the amount received from the members of the appellant society. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has further erred in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer confirming the addition directed in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961.
Under the circumstances the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that the required information could not be submitted before the lower authorities because certain problems faced by the appellant company and requested for giving one more opportunity to submit all the explanation required by the Department.
Per contra, Ld. DR opposed the plea of the Ld. AR of the appellant as appellant was not providing required details despite several opportunities were given by the Revenue and pleaded that the additions made should be confimred.
Heard both the sides. In the interest of justice, it is decided to give two more opportunities to the appellant to submit required details and documents to establish its case.
The matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the appellant is directed to cooperate with the Department and see that the appeal proceedings are completed at the earliest.
Appellant’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2024.
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- The Development Multipurpose Credit &… vs ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar, GujaratITA 458/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hislop College Employees Cooperative Credit… vs ITO Ward 2(3), NagpurITA 184/NAG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026
