Hex Blox Co Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by Hex Blox Co Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2016-17. The appeal arose from an assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 10.12.2018 and the CIT(A)’s order under Section 250 dated 25.11.2024. The assessee had filed its return on 10.03.2017 declaring total income of ₹49,010 after claiming a deduction of ₹93,77,779 under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). According to the assessee, the assessment was effectively completed ex parte because there was no response to the notices.
The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 133(6) to PMC Bank and obtained an interest certificate showing interest of ₹50,92,635 credited to the assessee’s account. The Assessing Officer allowed deduction under Section 80P to that extent but disallowed the balance ₹42,85,144 for want of documentary evidence. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer should also have obtained details from Saraswat Bank and that the assessment lacked adequate verification. The CIT(A), however, sustained the ₹42,85,144 disallowance, noting that the assessee had failed to furnish the required supporting documents. The assessee subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.
At the ITAT hearing, the assessee did not appear despite earlier adjournments and also failed to appear on 07.05.2026, 15.06.2026 and 22.07.2026. The Tribunal noted the assessee’s non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) as well and proceeded ex parte with the assistance of the Departmental Representative.
The Tribunal observed that although the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee deduction under Section 80P of ₹50,92,635, the assessee had not filed a Profit and Loss Account or Balance Sheet before either the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), nor had it filed those documents before the Tribunal. More significantly, the assessee had not furnished its registration certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, or any other appropriate authority to establish that it was a co-operative society. The Tribunal noted that being a co-operative society was a primary condition for claiming the benefit under Section 80P.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s contention that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were responsible for inadequate verification, holding that the assessee itself had failed to provide basic documents supporting its claim. In the circumstances, it found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s confirmation of the ₹42,85,144 addition and upheld the same. The Tribunal also noted that it had no power of enhancement and therefore did not comment on the relief already granted by the CIT(A), particularly as there was no Revenue cross-appeal. The assessee’s grounds were dismissed and the appeal was dismissed in entirety. The order was pronounced in open Court on 23.07.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act’) for AY 2016-17 on 25.11.2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 10.12.2018.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in sustaining an addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts as well as law.
2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in substanting the addition / disallowances made by the Ld. Assessing officer inspite of he having appreciating the fact as can be seen from para 4.3 of CIT(A) order that
“The AO did not make sufficient efforts to ensure that responses were sought in a reasonable timeframe, particularly since notices were issued close to the time barring date.”
3. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.42,85,144/ -, without appreciating the fact that Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have called for the details from Saraswat Bank as per provisions of section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as were called for from PMC Bank before taking any adverse view.
4. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge its duty of verifying the facts inspite of fact of interest earned from Saraswat Bank being on record of Ld. Assessing Officer.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds at the time/ before the hearing of the appeal.
6. The appellant therefore prays that the deduction correctly claimed by the appellant not disallowed by Ld. Assessing Officer vide an assessment order though stated to have been passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but practically being an ex-parte order, coupled with the fact of even Hon’ble CIT(A) having failed to carry out exercise of verifying the same from Bank, the matter may please be set aside to the office of Ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to conduct assessment proceedings afresh after offering an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”
3. On 13.01.2026 and 25.02.2026, the case was adjourned at the request of authorized representative of the assessee. However, no one appeared on 07.05.2026 and 15.06.2026. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment letter has been filed by the assessee. Similarly, today on 22.07.2026 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment letter has been filed. It is also noted that there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing appeal. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative.
Basic Facts :
4. The brief facts of the case as per the statements of facts are as under :
“Appellant, a co-operative housing society limited, had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 10/ 03/ 2017 declaring its total income of Rs.49,010/ – after claiming deduction of Rs.93,77,779/- u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961.
The case having been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, notice u/s 143(2) / 142(1) of the L.T. Act, 1961, were issued. However according to Ld. Assessing Officer there being no response from appellant an ex-parte assessment order (though stated to be an order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961) has been passed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer has stated of having issued notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to PMC Bank calling for bank statements, in response to which the PMC bank vide letter dated 28/ 11/ 2018 submitted the copy of interest certificate, certifying that an interest amount of Rs.50,92,635/ – was credited to appellant’s account and accordingly the Ld.. Assessing Officer having considered the same only to be allowable u/s 80P of the 1.T. Act, 1961, has disallowed the balance amount of Rs.42,85,144/- (Rs.93,77,779/- – Rs.50,92,635/) for want of documentary evidence without having reasonable opportunity of being heard, which fact has even been appreciated by Hon’ble CIT(A) as can be seen from the observations given at para 4.3 of CIT(A) order.
Against the said order appellant filed an appeal before Hon’ble CIT(A), however on going through the findings of Hon’ble CIT(A) as given in para 4.5 of appellate order it apparently appears that even in the course of the first appellate proceedings, appellant has not been able to place on record the required documents to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble CIT(A) practically on account of there being disputes/ differences between the members of the managing committee to the extent that the dispute/ differences resulted an administrator having been appointed vide an order dated 13/ 03/ 2025 passed by Hon’ble Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, CIDCO Navi Mumbai as a result into even the Hon’ble CIT(A) having sustained the disallowance of an amount of Rs.42,85,144/ – for want of supporting documents. It is the said order of Hon’ble CIT(A) which is subject matter of Appeal before your honours on the following among other grounds.”
Findings and Analysis:
5. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed assessee deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs.50,92,635/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted specifically in para 4.5 that no Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet has been filed either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that no documents has been filed before us also. Rather, the assessee has not filed copy of registration issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society to prove that it is a Cooperative Society. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.42,85,144/- as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.
6. Ironically, the assessee has been putting blame on the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) when it is apparently clear that the assessee has not bothered to file Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and basic documents to prove its that it is a Co-operative Society. However, the assessee has not filed certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. The assessee wants to claim benefit u/s 80P of the Act. It is a primary condition to claim 80P that the assessee should be a Cooperative Society. In this case, the assessee has not bothered to file copy of registration certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society or any other appropriate authority. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.42,85,144/-. We are aware that the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, though no documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) but as per Income Tax Act, we do not have power of enhancement, hence, we do not intend to comment on the relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) as there is no cross appeal by the Revenue. In these facts and circumstances, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2026
