KUNTALESHWAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO- WARD 5, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the NFAC. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to provide necessary material to substantiate the remaining addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit co-operative society, declared NIL income. The AO treated ₹36,82,853/- of Special Bank Notes (SBN) deposited during demonetisation as unexplained money. The NFAC reduced the addition to ₹4,74,573/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the remaining addition of ₹4,74,573/- towards SBN deposits is unexplained money, and if the assessee can provide documentary evidence to support its claim of it being cash balance held prior to demonetisation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The assessee is in appeal against the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAS/S/250/2023- 24/1062470203(1) dt. 12/03/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed which in turn arisen out of order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Ahmednagar [‘AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter];
Tersely stated the facts of the case are that; the assessee is a credit co- operative society which filed its income tax return [‘ITR’ hereinafter] declaring total income at ₹NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3
Kuntaleshwar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Vs ITO the event of assessee’s failure to comply with the notices and explain nature and source of ‘Special Bank Note’ [‘SBN’ hereinafter] ₹36,82,853/- deposited into its bank account during the period of demonetisation, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹41,57,430/-. Aggrieved assessee contested the former addition in an appeal wherein Ld. NFAC granted the substantial relief to the assessee society by restricting the addition to ₹4,74,573/-.
Still aggrieved by the order of first appellate authority the assessee came in appeal with as many ten grounds which are argumentative in nature hence reproduction thereof for our adjudication deem unwarranted. However, it shall suffice to state that these grounds are collectively directed against (a) balance addition sustained by the Ld. NFAC and consequential denial of 80P(2) deduction.
Heard rival parties and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record and considered the fact & circumstances of the case in the light of settled legal position and case laws relied upon.
We note that, at the appellate stage the reconciliation of cash book could positively able to prove the actual cash deposit by the assessee during the declared period of demonetisation was ₹4,74,573/- as against the figure worked out by the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. In the larger interest of justice, the Ld. NFAC sought remand from field which however did fail to bring any satisfactory proof substantiating the nature & source of SBN available to assessee society, on the contrary the exercise revealed cat out of box that the appellant society did accept ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3
Kuntaleshwar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Vs ITO SBN/cash during the period of demonetisation in the range of ₹20,000/- and more from its various member whose PAN & Aadhar were provided in some cases. It was also on record that, in the event of failure on the part of assessee to produce documentary evidences in support of its claim that such ₹4,74,573/- SBN/cash deposit indeed was a balance held as at the 08/11/2016 the Ld. NFAC confirmed the addition to that extent.
The Ld. AR appearing on behalf the appellant society pleaded that, given an opportunity the assessee undertakes to place the details in support of assessee’s claim that the balance additions sustained in its case indeed represent the cash balance held by it as at the commencement of declared demonetisation. The Ld. DR could hardly dispute the request for remand. Having considered the facts holistically, without disturbing the partial relief granted, in the larger interest of justice we deem it necessary to remand the file of Ld. NFAC with the direction to accord an opportunity to the appellant to bring on record necessary/requisite material against the balance addition sustained by it and adjudicate the same in accordance with law.
The appeal in results is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday, 25th July, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- VINAY BHAMORE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 25th July, 2024. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026