PIMPRI CHINCHWAD EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION,WARD-2, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider adjournment petitions and did not provide a detailed adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the issue.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated cash deposits of Rs. 57,69,500/- as unexplained under Section 69A. The assessee claimed these deposits were tuition fees collected from students and that the assessment was wrongly framed ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits were unexplained and if the ex-parte assessment and appellate proceedings were conducted properly without considering the assessee's submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012- 2013, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056082629(1), dated 14.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities i.e., Assessing Officer and the 2 ITA.No.1188/PUN/2023 CIT(A), in the assessment herein dated 16.11.2019 as well as in the lower appellate discussion, respectively, have held the assessee’s alleged cash deposits of Rs.57,69,500/- as unexplained u/sec.69A of the Act. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s case before us is that not only the foregoing impugned assessment had been wrongly framed ex-parte but also the lower appellate discussion has failed to take note of its various adjournment petitions before confirming the impugned addition.
Learned counsel first of all sought to invite our attention to the fact that the assessee had duly submitted it’s adjournment letters before the CIT(A)'s which have nowhere been considered whilst confirming the impugned addition ex-parte. This is stated to be coupled with the fact that the lower appellate discussion has neither framed any point(s) of determination nor is there any detailed adjudication as per sec.250(6) as it is evident from a perusal of the corresponding findings from para-4 onwards. Our attention is further invited to the assessee’s paper book running into 70 pages explaining of the impugned cash deposits as well as the adjournment letters filed before the CIT(A).
3 ITA.No.1188/PUN/2023 4. The Revenue’s stand on the other hand draws strong support from both the learned lower authorities action making the impugned addition.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing sole substantive issue involved in the instant appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits made in the assessee’s account. We make it clear that this assessee is a trust running educational institution(s) imparting education to pupils in various classes. And that it’s stand before us attributes source of it’s cash deposits representing tuition fee collected from the said students only. We keep in mind all these facts and deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the CIT(A) needs to re-examine the entire issue afresh within three effective opportunities of hearing so as to enable the assessee to file all the relevant details explaining source of it’s cash deposits at its own risk and responsibility. This entire exercise may be completed within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. We order accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
4 ITA.No.1188/PUN/2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.12.2023.
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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- 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