JANKI MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKASH SAMITI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPYUR

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the three impugned orders Ld. CIT(A) has given a common finding thereby not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 observing that there has been complete non-compliance by the assessee before the AO and it has not discharged its onus during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. AR humbly prayed that the assessee is an educational institution running school and the staff looking after the work was not aware with the scrutiny concept and also the dates of hearing could not be communicated on some occasions. He therefore, stated that an opportunity may be granted to go before the Ld. CIT(A) and direction may be given to admit additional evidence so as to adjudicate the issue on merit.

On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the prayer of the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We notice that the assessee is a registered society and runs two schools in the name of Ambika Bhawani Public School, B. B. Ganj, Muzaffarpur and Ambika Bhawani Public School, Sariya, Muzaffarpur. Assessments for AYs 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2019-20 were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2019 and 30.09.2021. We observe that certain additions have been made in all these years which are mainly on account of unexplained cash credit. It is submitted by the assessee that the alleged cash credits are security deposits from the students which are below Rs. 20,000/- and it is also submitted before us that for the other additions also the assessee has sufficient evidence and explanation and if those additional evidences Page 2 of 4 to 75/Pat/2023 A Y: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2019-20 Janki Mahila Evam Bal Vikash Samity are admitted assessee will be able to explain the various issues on which impugned addition have been made.

Further, on perusal of the impugned orders, we notice that assessee had filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for all the three impugned years but Ld. CIT(A0 has not admitted the same merely on the ground that assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidences and if it is found that they have a direct bearing on the issues under consideration then in the interest of justice and in order to compute the correct income of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from the AO. We, therefore, restore all the issues raised on merits before us in the instant three appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A and call for a remand report from Ld. AO and then after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee pass a speaking order adjudicating the issues on merit in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee should be diligent in attending before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to take unnecessary adjournment.