TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tail addition of Rs. 2,02,56,693/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in accepting fresh submission from the assessee and not allowing the AO to examine the additional evidence admitted by him as per the provisions u/s 46A(3) of the IT Rules 1962. iii. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above or all grounds raised at time of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. The return of income was not fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained. The appellant co-operative society was registered was issued PAN as Body of Individuals prior to 08.10.2016 with PAN NO. AAABR1249J. As such the appellant was tot in a position to file any return or audit reports with this PAN. The appellant was issued a new PAN (AACAR8831P) on 08.10.2016 after which responses to the notices issued under income tax have been accordingly fled under this new PAN 5. Observation and Decision: In ground Nos 1, the Appellant has contested the order u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 28/12/2019 for the A.Y, 2017-18 of the AO of making an addition of Rs 10,69,000/- and Rs 1,91,87,693/-, I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant. It is observed that the Appellant is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly show cause notice was issued on 13-12-2019 fixing the case for hearing on 20-12-2019 and order passed on 28-12-2019. It is clear that proper and meaningful opportunity has not been afforded to the Appellant during the scrutiny proceedings. In view of the above, the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 10,69,000/- and Rs. 1,91,87,693/- and the addition is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed." 5. It is this order against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted by Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has accepted fresh evidences from the assessee and did not allowed the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x-parte and the whole of the cash deposits and also the cash deposited during the demonetization period was added as total income of the assessee. In first appeal, these facts were brought in the knowledge of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the ex-parte assessment order was passed on earlier PAN of the assessee which was not in use, however the audit report and income tax return was filed on new PAN. The copy of audit report in Form 3CA/3CD and copy of ITR-V and even the copy of assessment order which was passed on the basis of return filed on new PAN & copy of various bank account statements were furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apart from above documents, list of persons who have deposited cash of Rs. 10,69,000/- during demonetization was also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in the capacity of co-operative society/AOP. The assessee society was not using the earlier PAN No.AAABR1249J but has filed return of income and audit report on new PAN No.AACAR8831P. It was the sole contention of Ld. DR that the procedure envisaged in Rule 46A(3) was not followed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and without forwarding these documents to the Assessing Officer for verification, the relief has been granted which is unjustified. We find that Ld. AR has furnished copy of ITR- V which was furnished on new PAN & copy of its assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act for the period under consideration. We also find that the return of income for the period under consideration furnished on new PAN was selected for scrutiny through CASS f....