Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative credit society, did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19 despite significant financial transactions including cash deposits/withdrawals, acquisition of immovable property, and mutual fund purchases. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings, denied the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 for the immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal restored the disputed issue of unexplained investment to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It allowed the admission of additional evidence by the assessee, which included details of loan sanction and property acquisition due to borrower default, as these evidences were crucial for a fair decision and were not previously examined by lower authorities.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), particularly concerning the source of funds for acquiring immovable property.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI
Assessee by Shri.Ramesh Mudhol..AR Revenue by Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2026 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 147 r.w.s144B and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of unexplained investment u/se 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative credit society registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The income tax department based on the NMS portal found large financial transactions (i) cash deposits and withdrawls in the four bank accounts(ii)acquisition of immovable property and TDS u/sec194IA(P) of the Act was deducted and (ii) purchase of units of mutual funds are done by the assesse in the F.Y.2017-18 and the assesse has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2018-19. The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income in lieu of notice u/sec148 of the Act on 2.05.2022 disclosing a total income of Rs.NIL after claiming deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.2,11,258/-.Further notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for the clarifications and details of sources of purchase of immovable property and there was partial compliance.The Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions filed on 31.10.2023 & 22.02.2024 and find that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of the Act and also the A.O. was not satisfied with the clarifications and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of Rs.2,11,258/- and similarly since the assessee has failed to furnish the explanations and documentary evidences in support of acquisition of immovable property dealt at Para4.6.3 of the order, the A.O made an addition of unexplained investment u/sec69 of the Act of Rs.1,60,00.000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.1,62,11,258/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 13.03.2024.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal
, statement of facts, findings of the AO and submissions of the assesse but has confirmed the action of the Assessing officer and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the facts and submissions of the assessee in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits with supporting sources for acquisition of immovable property and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules and substantiated the submissions with paper book. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not examined by the lower authorities and genuineness of transactions are not proved and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made u/sec69 of the Act on acquisition of the property as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assesse has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. Whereas the loan was sanctioned and advanced to barrower in the regular course of activities of the society in the F.Y.2014-15 and since the barrower has defaulted in repayment of loan amount and interest, the society has acquired the property pledged by the barrower vide sale deed dated 14.07.2017 and the Ld.AR demonstrated the E- proceeding acknowledgements of submitting the information before the revenue authorities placed at page 22 to 25 of the paper book. The assessee is now filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with details of copies of meeting proceedings of the executive committee sanctioning the loan and the purchase of immovable property of the barrower due to default of repayment of loan along with cash credit ledger account of the barrower with the outstanding loan amount payable which could not be submitted before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences play a vital role in decision making. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we restore the disputed issue along with the evidences to the file of the CIT(A) to verify and adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.