ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ATPADI,ATPADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 SANGLI, PNE, W, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2139/PUN/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adarsh Co-operative Credit Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Sangli. Society Limited, Koshti Galli, Atpadi, Sangli- 415301. PAN : AAFAA0908H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date of hearing : 18.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 30.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing.

2 ITA No.2139/PUN/2024 Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available on record. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and has not filed its return of income. The Department was in possession of information in respect of the assessee that huge cash amount has been deposited and also withdrawn from its bank accounts, therefore a notice u/s 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued. Since the assessee co-operative society did not respond to the above notice, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and in response to this notice the assessee cooperative society filed its return of income, declaring total income of Rs.52,665/-. However, this return of income was treated invalid as the same was not verified and thus the AO treated it as never filed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted registration certificate, financial statements, bank account statements and interest income details. After examining the above details, the Assessing Officer issued another notice to the assessee but the assessee remained absent and accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act determining the income at Rs.18,62,601/-.

3 ITA No.2139/PUN/2024 4. Since the first appeal was filed belatedly with a delay of 111 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by sub-ordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not condoned the delay & dismissed the appeal without admitting the same since it was filed belatedly. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days. We further find that in the statement of facts furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee has stated that the books of accounts were prepared by the assessee co-operative society and the same were audited by a registered certified Auditor (not a Chartered Accountant) Mr. Satish P. Baravkar. The auditor is though expert in co-operative laws but had no knowledge of the provisions of the IT Act and hence he never suggested regarding the necessity of filing of income tax return. It was also stated that Mr. Akramali Dilawar Shikalgar who was working as co-operative auditor was looking after the tax compliances on behalf of the assessee society. The

4 ITA No.2139/PUN/2024 registered e-mail ID on the income tax portal also belongs to Mr. Shikalgar. Since Mr. Akramali Dilawar Shikalgar was not having the technical knowledge about the appeal proceedings and, therefore, ultimately the assessee society contacted Advocate Sudhir Shintre on 04.05.2024 who suggested to file the appeal against the assessment order. It was also mentioned in the statement of facts that the delay in filing of first appeal was unintentional and not deliberate. Under these circumstances, the assessee society requested before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay of 111 days & requested to admit the appeal for hearing. 7. From a perusal of the above statement of facts furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are fully satisfied with the contention of the assessee co-operative society that there was proper and reasonable cause for not filing the first appeal within the time limit prescribed under the statute, before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, in our considered opinion Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay of 111 days. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case & also in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal

5 ITA No.2139/PUN/2024 afresh as per fact and law after condoning the delay and also after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is hereby also directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/submissions/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th December, 2024. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.