M/S DAULAT SAHAKARI PATPETHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-30, MUMBAI

4. The order passed by the learned I.T.0. as well as CIT (A) is bad in law and against facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a cooperative credit society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 carrying on the business of accepting deposits and giving credit facili- ties to its members. Assessee did not file its return of income. Infor- mation was received on the ITBA module in respect of deposit of cash of ₹ 29,79,500/- in the bank account of the assessee during the de- monetisation period. Assessing officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) call- ing for details of the assessee. Since the assessee failed to file the re- turn of income and submit any details in response to the said notice, the assessing officer resorted to completing the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. In the impugned assessment order, Ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee made partial compliance to the statutory notices issued by him. He also noted about the submission made by the as- sessee with few details vide show cause notice dated 24.09.2019. Ac- cording to the Assessing Officer, since assessee did not furnish com- plete details, while completing the ex parte assessment, he observed that total credits appear in the bank accounts of the assessee is of ₹

Daulat Sahakari Patpethi Maryadit, AY 2017-18 1,86,13,859/- which includes cash deposit of ₹ 29,79,000/-. He treat- ed this as assessee's unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee went in ap- peal before the CIT(A). 4. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we note that four dates of hearing were fixed in which neither any written submissions were filed in support of grounds of appeal nor any adjournment appli- cations were made. Accordingly, he held that assessee has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken by it and thus concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

5. Before us, Ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded for remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR objected for the remand since assessee has failed to meet its submission at all stages.

6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on rec- ord, we find that there are partial submissions made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings which the Assessing Officer has taken note of. However, at the first appeal stage there is no com- pliance by the assessee. Since the assessee is a registered cooperative society providing credit facilities to its members and has made certain partial submissions before the Assessing Officer, in the interest of jus- tice and fair play, we find it appropriate to accept the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication of the grounds of appeal taken before him. We direct the ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for making his submissions and also call for remand report from the Assessing Officer, if so required. We direct the assessee also, to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed for the appeal and assist in its expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee

Daulat Sahakari Patpethi Maryadit, AY 2017-18 should not seek adjournments unless warranted by compelling rea- sons. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21 June, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Narender Kumar Choudhry) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 21 June, 2024