Case Law Details
Hunnur Souhard Credit Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Hunnur Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee, a co-operative society, filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessments under Section 147 on the ground that substantial cash deposits had been made into the assessee’s bank account and no return of income had been filed. Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), followed by a show-cause notice under Section 144, were issued. As the assessee did not respond, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A for both years.
The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with delays of 142 and 139 days. It explained that it had originally held a PAN in the status of a firm and later obtained a new PAN in the status of an AOP. Returns were filed under the new PAN, and therefore the assessee was unaware of the notices and assessment orders issued under the old PAN. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as time-barred, holding that sufficient cause for the delay had not been established.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits had been properly recorded in its books and reported in returns filed under the new PAN. The Tribunal observed that, after obtaining a new PAN and filing returns under it, the assessee would not normally monitor the old PAN. Therefore, the explanation for the delay could not be dismissed as insufficient.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, holding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within time. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with a direction to the assessee to produce supporting documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the NFAC, Delhi dated 17/10/2025 and 20/11/2025 in respect of the A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society and the AO had alleged that they have not filed their return of income even though there is a cash deposits into their bank account. The assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notices u/s. 148 as well as u/s. 142(1) were issued. The assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore a show cause notice was sent through the verification unit by speed post and it was found that the same was delivered to the assessee. Thereafter a show cause notice u/s. 144 was issued and the assessee had not responded to the said notice also. Therefore the AO based on the details available with him had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for both the years. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 142 days and 139 days. In the application to condone the said delay, the assessee had submitted that they got another PAN as the AOP and filed their returns in the said PAN and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the notices issued by the AO as well as the assessment order made in the old PAN number and therefore the said delay has been occurred. The assessee had also mentioned the current PAN number as AAAAH8911N. The Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the said facts and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation and observed that the assessee had not established sufficient cause for filing the appeals with the said delays.
3. As against the said orders, the assessee is in appeals before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had originally PAN in the status of firm and subsequently they got a new PAN with the status as AOP and thereafter the returns were filed in the new PAN showing the deposits made into their bank account and therefore the allegation that the assessee had not explained the source for the said cash deposits is not correct and without appreciating the facts properly. The Ld.AR further submitted that in view of the change in the PAN number, the assessee had not viewed the details in the earlier PAN and therefore the proceedings initiated by the AO as well as the appellate order were not noticed by the assessee and therefore the said delay has been occurred.
5. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not co-operated with the department and also filed the appeal with a huge delays and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeals.
6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. We have gone through the appellate order and the reasons stated by the assessee for the said delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). This fact was not disputed by the authorities also. When the assessee is having a new PAN number and filed their return of income in the new PAN, normally they would not have viewed the earlier PAN in the portal and therefore the reasons given by the assessee could not be brushed aside as not a sufficient cause for condoning the said delay.
8. It is also submitted by the assessee all the cash deposits made into their bank accounts were properly recorded in their books of accounts and also reported to the department while filing the return of income under the new PAN. If the facts are like this, the assessee should have requested the department to cancel the earlier PAN number in order to avoid the complications. If the assessee had cancelled the PAN number, the AO could not have initiated the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.
9. Considering the merits of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in time and therefore we are condoning the said delays of 142 and 141 days in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore these issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration, in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to produce the necessary documents in support of their claim at the time of hearing.
10. With the above directions, we partly allow the appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2026.
Author Bio
