MS OMKAR URBAN MULTISTATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of members whose statements were used and without providing directions under Section 144A. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative society, made cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) added a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was unsuccessful.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination and copies of directions under Section 144A before passing an ex-parte assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 144,Section 144A,Section 131,Section 115BBE,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] which in turn is arising out of Assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act dated 27.12.2019.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Multistate Cooperative Society and is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Based on the information that the assessee society made cash deposit of Rs.12,61,000/- during the demonetization period notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee requiring him to file the return of income. In response to notices u/s.142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted the requisite details. On examination of the bank statements, details of the members who have deposited cash, statements recorded u/s.131 of the Act, etc. the AO came to conclusion that cash of Rs.17,39,936/- remains unsubstantiated, thereby made addition of the said sum as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act and also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. AO also made addition of Rs.82,078/- shown as profit to the total income of the assessee.
Assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but remained unsuccessful. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. AO has passed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act based on the statement of members recorded u/s.131 of the Act but the assessee was not provided any opportunity of cross examination. The assessee was not given the copy of directions u/s.144A of the Act. He therefore prayed that necessary opportunity may be granted to the assessee for substantiating the source of alleged cash deposits before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued support the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. It is an admitted position that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. It is contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that assessee was neither confronted with the statements u/s.131 of the Act which are used to decide against the assessee nor provided the opportunity of cross examination and also the copy of directions given u/s.144A of the Act not provided to assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, I deem it proper to set-aside the impugned order to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication considering our observation in the above lines and also affording reasonable opportunities and decide in accordance with law. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026