MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer on account of surplus in ‘income and expenditure account’.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer by disallowing inflated expenses.

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied by the assessing officer under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act.

The learned CIT(A) erred in not confirming the action of the assessing officer in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on the assessee trust on 24.10.2018. During the survey operation, it was found that the assessee trust did not have any registration u/s 12A/12AA of the Act. It was also found that the trustees were inflating the expenses of the trust by debiting bogus expenses in the Profit and loss Account as well as suppressing the receipts for their personal benefits. These factors made the assessee trust ineligible for the exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO re-opened the case u/s 147 of the Act for AYs 2012-

For the AY 2012-13, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 of the Act. As mentioned above, a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee. On the basis of findings of survey operation, notice u/s 148 was issued. However, no return of income in response to this notice was filed by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued various notices as well as show cause notices from time to time. However, the assessee kept on taking adjournments and did not file the requisite details. The AO also noticed that the auditor of the assessee trust resigned during the assessment proceedings for the reasons that relevant details were not given to him by the trustees for representing the matter before him. Subsequently, after giving final show cause notice, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making following additions :-

Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) raising various grounds of appeal in respect of the assessment order as also on juri ictional issue. It was also claimed that the AO relied on certain statements which were already retracted later. 5.1 The ld.CIT(A) has initially stated that the assessee subsequent to filing original grounds of appeal, submitted modified grounds of appeal which have been adjudicated by him in the instant order. We find that before us, the assessee did not dispute the ld.CIT(A) adjudicating the amended grounds implying that the original grounds were not to be taken into consideration.

2 He observed that despite repeated opportunities accorded to the assessee, it made only a partial compliance. Certain details specifically requisitioned by him i.e. copies of various correspondences made with the AO for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18, copy of statement of Shri Sunil G. Patil recorded at the premises of the trust and copies of ITRs, if any, filed by the trust for any year prior to AY 2012-13, were not P a g e | 6 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal produced. No return for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18 was filed by it. He also referred to statements of various key persons of the trust during survey were recorded which further revealed that the assessee trust violated various provisions of the Act and had ignored various statutory compliances consistently for the entire period under consideration. Appeal filed by the assessee was ultimately dismissed by him upholding the action of the AO.

In ground no.1, it is stated that the learned CIT(A) erred in not declaring the assessment being completed by the learned assessing officer as void-ab-initio.

1 Before us, the ld.AR has not able to bring on record any material or cogent evidence in support of the above ground. We however, find that before the ld.CIT(A),in the modified grounds of appeal no.1 the assessee had contested the assessment order being devoid of proper assumption of juri iction by the AO. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed this ground after detailed discussion. Before us in the grounds of appeal, the assessee did not contest the dismissal of its ground by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of juri iction issue but has made a general observation that the assessment was null and void without

In ground no.2 it is claimed that the ld.CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO not to rely on the statements of the trustees which were retracted later.

We find that the ld.CIT(A) has made a detailed deliberation on this issue. He observed that during the survey operation, statement of Shri M.N. Sheth, Auditor of the trust was also recorded wherein in response to Q. No. 6, 7 and 8, stated that the audit work of the trust for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18 was not completed in time because the trust did not submit the books of accounts to him for the purpose of audit work in time. A perusal of assessment order further suggested that since the trustees were not cooperating with the auditor Shri Sheth, vide letter dated 14.05.2019, he resigned from the trust as auditor for the following reasons as mentioned in this letter:-

1 During the survey operation, statement of Shri Chintamani V. Dixit Hardikar, Accountant of the trust was also recorded on wherein he informed that last return of the trust was filed for A.Y. 2011-12 and no return for any subsequent assessment year was filed. With regards to the non-filing of ITR, he stated that the trustees were sending documents only after the expiry of the time limit for filing the ITR and therefore, no ITR was filed. As regards to the details of compliance before Charity Commissioner, Shri Hardikar stated in response to Q. No. 7 that as per his memory, the return with Charity Commissioner were filed only till F.Y. 2008-09. 8.2 The ld.CIT(A) also referred to the statement recorded during the survey of Shri Sunil G. Patil, Trustee who admitted that after the death of his father, the books of accounts of the trust remained to be taken care of. He further stated that there were some mistakes in the books of accounts of the trust and these mistakes will not be repeated in future.

3 The ld.CIT(A) has also relied on various judicial decisions while observing that retraction being after thought and that without any P a g e | 9 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal basis had no significance. The plea of any coercion by the authorities concerned during survey operations has not been made out. He placed reliance on Pebble Investment and Finance ITA No.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017 P a g e | 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

On due consideration of the facts on record and the detailed observations made by the authorities below and dealt with at length in the appellate order, we find that as per pages 14 to 24 the ld.CIT(A) has narrated the relevant statements of key persons including the trustees. As discussed by him in the concluding in para 31 on page 24 of the order, such retraction had no evidentiary value in absence of any element of coercion. The retraction was neither immediate nor supported by any evidence. It is rightly pointed out that there of the trustees admitted in their separate statements that cash was taken away by them for their personal user and there was suppression of receipt as well. One of the trustees Sri Sunil Patil even in his subsequent statement dated 31.10.2018 repeated the same admitted facts regarding irregularity and misappropriation by the trustees of the trust funds. Considering all these facts and the legal position emerging from the cited decisions above, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate order dismissing the ground no.2. 11. In ground no.3, it is contented that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to determine the income of the appellant as per Sections 11 and 12 considering the appellant is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income tax Act.

Both the above grounds being related and consequential to the issue of registration are adjudicated together as the facts are intertwined basically based on the findings during survey operation.

It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has duly deliberated on the issue at length in the appellate order. He observed that during the survey as well as thereafter, the claim of the assessee had been that the trust was registered u/s 12A of the Act and therefore was eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the submission of the trustees of the appellant trust at the time of survey was that the said registration certificate u/s 12A was not readily available and would be made available subsequently .Same was the submission of Shri M. N. Sheth, the auditor of the appellant trust. Thus, during the survey operation, trustees as well as the auditor of the appellant trust categorically stated that they had registration order u/s 12AA of the Act and a copy of same shall be furnished subsequently. Thereafter, during the assessment proceedings, as noted in para 14 of the assessment order, the appellant vide letter

1 The ld.CIT(A) further observed that the AO from the return of income filed for A.Y. 2011-12 some registration number of 12A/12AA certificate was mentioned on the said return. During the present assessment proceedings, the AO specifically asked the appellant to furnish the same, however, no documentary evidence was filed. Further, during the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant as well as trustee were asked to file the copies of ITRs filed for the assessment years prior to A.Y. 2012-13, however, no such copies of ITRs were filed till the last date of hearing before him. The AR of the trust on 16.11.2023 stated that same were not readily available. He further noted that even though the appellant trust filed return of income for AY 2011-12, no copy of said return was filed before him for the reasons best known to the appellant.

Before us, the ld.AR has repeated the same contentions as made before the appellate authority. It was contented that the trust was already registered u/s 80G vide registration certificate no.P165/M- 165/84-85on 6.4.1984 by CIT, Pune. A photocopy thereof was produced. Accordingly, it could be presumed that it had obtained registration u/s 12A of the Act as well. However, the said registration documents were lost. Further, the AR was requested to submit an affidavit qua registration granted u/s 80G and 12A of the Act. In this connection, the assessee was asked to produce the original certificate u/s 80G for perusal. The Bench also asked the ld.DR to get the authenticity of the said certificate from the AO concerned.

1 In response, the ld.AR has submitted affidavits of the trustee Sri Sunil Patil, Sri Anil Patil, President stating that copies of 80G certificates were available. During Mumbai floods of 2005 all records were destroyed. The trust also filed applications with Regional Talathi. The trust did not have originals with it. However, the trust had received recovery notices from ITO(Exemption) DATED 16.11.2015 for AY 2011- 12.Trust paid Rs 1554520/- on 3.12.2015.Thereafter the AO also allowed the claim of trust u/s 11 in response to notice u/s 154 of the Act and the assessee was also issued refund. It was also stated that original registration certificate granted u/s 12A was destroyed. In order to obtain

The ld.DR relied on the appellate order.

With regard to the ground in connection with the findings of the AO regarding inflation of expenses and suppression of receipts, the ld.CIT(A) observed that during the survey proceedings, the survey team found that for many expenses, hand made vouchers in one hand writing were prepared. All these expenses were paid in cash. Besides this, there were certain expenses debited in the income and expenditure account without any supporting bill. This fact was confronted with Shri Sunil Gorakh Patil during the survey wherein he admitted that these expenses exist only on papers and were debited for taking away cash for personal use. Further, during the survey operation, it was found that for some assessment years the assessee trust had suppressed the receipts. When confronted Shri Sunil Gorakh Patil in the statement recorded during the survey offered the same for tax. These discrepancies were separately confronted

1 During the appellate proceedings, the AR stated that Shri Sunil G. Patil had retracted his statement on 31.10.2018.The ld.CIT(A) observed that perusal of same clearly suggested that this was not a retraction but reconfirmation of the declaration made earlier during the survey. In this statement, Shri Sunil Patil admitted that there were mistakes in the trust’s books of accounts and he reiterated the declaration by stating that the mistakes committed in past shall not be repeated in future. Besides this, the appellant could not point out any retraction letter filed before the AO. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant that the statement had been retracted, was found factually incorrect. Besides Shri Sunil G. Patil, statements of other two trustees namely Shri Anil Patil and Shri Milind Patil were also recorded during the survey wherein they admitted the deficiencies in the accounts of the trust. These statements of Shri Anil Patil and Shri Milind Patil had also not been retracted by them. Since the statements recorded during the survey had not been retracted before the AO, the ld.CIT(A) held that the decision rendered in P a g e | 16 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal the case of S. Khader Khan Son (supra) shall not be applicable to the present case.

2 The ld.CIT(A) further stated that the issue of evidentiary value of a statement recorded during the survey operation has been examined by various courts from time to time wherein it has been held that the statement recorded during the survey carries an evidentiary value and can be used while completing the assessment. The case laws clearly lay down a position that the statement recorded during survey operation does carry an evidentiary value and can be used by the AO while framing the assessment. It is true that the statement recorded during the survey can be retracted but such retraction can be held as valid only when such statement was recorded under threat or coercion or there is mistake in recording of facts in the statement. It has also been held that retraction if any, should be immediate and also such retraction should be supported by documentary evidences. If any of these ingredients is not present in a case, the retraction will not be considered as valid and such statement can be used as evidence. In the present case, three trustees of the appellant trust admitted in their separate statements that cash was taken away from the trust for their personal benefit as well as that there is suppression of receipts. The statement of Shri Sunil Patil was again recorded u/s P a g e | 17 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 131 of the Act on 31.10.2018, wherein the disclosure made at the time of survey was reconfirmed. Thus, after making disclosure during survey, the trustee of the appellant trust has re-confirmed his disclosure. As discussed above, these statements were not retracted before the AO.

3 Considering the above discussion and the case-laws mentioned above, the modified ground no. 2 raised by the appellant was dismissed by him.

In so far as the issue relating to the addition made by the AO on account of surplus in ‘income and expenditure account, ‘suppressed receipts’ and ‘inflated expenses’ is concerned, these additions were made by the AO for the following reasons:-

2 The ld.CIT(A) stated that the crux of appellant’s argument was that since it was registered u/s 80G of the Act for F.Y. 1982-83 and 1983-84, it should be presumed that at that time itself, the trust was P a g e | 19 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal registered u/s 12A of the Act. For this proposition, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Rotary Club of Poona Downtown Charitable Trust (supra). He found that in this case, the registration u/s 80G was renewed till the year 2007 as against the present case wherein the 80G was granted only upto FY 1983-84. This fact is very important because the clause (vi) in section 80G(5) was inserted only w.e.f. 1.10.1991 vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991. Before insertion of clause (vi) in section 80G(5), there was no requirement of any statutory approval of CIT, for the purposes of section 80G. This is clear from the CBDT’s Explanatory Circular No. 621 dated 19/12/1991, wherein it has been explained that before this amendment, the trusts seeking donations u/s 80G, were required to take only ‘administrative approval from CIT’. It has further been explained that after the amendment, the trusts are now required to be statutorily approved by the Commissioner.

3 It was further noted that the Rule 11AA of Income Tax Rules 1962 was inserted only w.e.f. 21.09.1992, wherein the filing of registration certificate u/s 12A of the Act along with 80G application, was made mandatory. Thus, before this amendment u/s 80G w.e.f. 1.10.1991 and insertion of Rule 11AA, there was no statutory requirement that in order to obtain administrative

4 In respect of the copies of 80G certificates filed by the assessee for F.Ys. 1982-83 and 1983-84, the ld.CIT(A) observed that no copy of 80G approval certificate for any subsequent year had been filed by the appellant. As discussed above, in F.Ys. 1982-83 and 1983-84, there was no requirement of any statutory approval for the purposes of section 80G and since there was no Rule 11AA at that time, therefore, on the basis of 80G approval certificates for F.Ys. 1982-83 and 1983-84, it could not be presumed that the trust had 12A registration at that time because the same was not mandatory as per above discussion. On the other hand, in the decision of Rotary Club (supra) relied upon by the appellant, the 80G registration certificates upto year 2007 were available on records meaning thereby that the said society was granted 80G registration even after insertion of clause (iii) in section 80G(5). Therefore, the decision of hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Rotary Club (supra) was not found applicable to the facts of present case.

5 He further observed that the fact of taking out cash from the appellant trust by the trustees by way of booking bogus expenses and suppressing the receipts, had been accepted on multiple occasions. The P a g e | 21 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal quantification of income on these issues had also been accepted in the statements recorded under oath and additional income for respective assessment years were disclosed. As discussed earlier in this order, these statements had not been retracted and therefore were valid evidences for the purpose of assessments. Till date, no documentary evidence contrary to above admissions/findings, has been filed by the appellant.

6 Considering the above discussion, he held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per “income and expenditure account” as well as the addition of Rs. 53,00,321/-towards the ‘inflated expenses as made were upheld. Further, since the appellant failed to substantiate that it was registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act for the year under consideration and also since there were violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant trust was not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The modified ground no. 3 raised by the appellant was dismissed.

Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the same contentions as made before the appellate authority. It is contented that subsequent to P a g e | 22 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal survey operation, it had obtained the registration u/s 12AB of the Act and therefore, it should be granted the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. A perusal of this certificate dated 24.09.2021 suggests that the same is valid only for A.Y. 2022-23 onwards. It is also seen that the said registration was issued by CIT, CPC, Bangalore on the basis of certification of the appellant trust in its application, wherein the appellant had mentioned that it is already registered u/s 12A of the Act, as the said application was made u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. As discussed above, this claim of the appellant is not factually correct. Moreover, the said registration is valid only for AY 2022-23 onwards and has no applicability for the year under consideration. In view of above, the said certificate has no bearing for the year under consideration.

1 We find that the ld.CIT(A) has duly taken note of all the relevant facts of the case. In so far as the contention of the ld.AR that the trust was already allowed registration u/s 80G of the Act is concerned, we find that despite given more than adequate opportunity of hearing right from the day survey conducted in 2018 till the passing of the appellate order, the assessee failed to demonstrate that during the impugned period from AY 2012-13 to 2017-18, it was granted certificates u/s 80G as well as 12A of the Act. The contention of the assessee is P a g e | 23 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal devoid of any merit and the affidavits and annexed documents do not give any inkling of existence of such registrations. The statements of key persons including the trustees and the auditors emphasized existence of registration which never came to light. Even the claim of 80G certificates upto AY 2011-12,as stated above despite specific request of the Bench, the ld.AR could not produce the original thereof.

2 As regards adverse drawn w.r.t. receipts and expenditure nothing has been brought on record to rebut the contentions of key persons of the trust including three of the trustee admitting misappropriation of funds of the trust notwithstanding their subsequent denial through retracted statements. The fact that the assessee did not file its returns of income for the entire period under consideration either u/s 139 r or even u/ 148 of the Act in itself casts serious doubts about the claimed charitable nature of the assessee trust. Even the auditors admitted lapses in getting the books of account audited by him.

3 Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and dismissing the grounds pertaining to the claim of exemption as also suppression of receipts and inflation of expenses for P a g e | 24 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal personal gains of the trustees. Accordingly, ground no.3,4 and 5 are dismissed.

In ground no.7, it is stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied by the AO under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground being consequential, no adjudication at this stage is required as the AO would calculate the interest in OGE depending upon the final determination of the assessed income.

In ground no. 8, it is stated that The learned CIT(A) erred in not confirming the action of the AO in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. The ground being premature as no penalty order has been passed is infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

The assessee trust has also filed an additional ground for all the assessment years under consideration in the instant appeals before this Bench claiming exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab) and 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Stating it to be purely legal in nature and therefore, may be admitted in view of the landmark decisions of hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC and Jute Corporation of India.

The ld.DR has contested the ground by claiming that given the lack of registration u/s 12A/12AA and admitted misuse of funds the trust does not qualify for this exemption. The requisite condition that the institute to exist solely for educational purposes are not met here, even if the receipts are below the limit ,other disqualifications apply.

We have carefully considered the request. We find that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd.

1 On due consideration of the above ground, we find that the same are legal in nature and go into the roots of the controversy in hand. Moreover, no new facts need to be investigated to examine applicability of above sections qua facts on record. Accordingly, we admit the grounds above.

2 Considering all the relevant facts and the circumstances of the case, we agree with the ld.AR that the grounds being raised for the first time before the Bench were not considered by the authorities below, as such they may be remanded to them for considering them. The ld.AO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

ITA No. 378/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2013-14)

Facts are similar as in AY 2012-13.No return was filed. The assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act denying the claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 for the reasons that the trust was not registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act and also there were violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Addition of Rs 88,38,845/- was also made for inflation of expenses.

1 Before the ld.CIT(A)assesse based on certain documents requested for admitting them as additional evidence and to call for remand report which was rejected on the observations that the assessee submitted certain ledger accounts of certain expenses which were already before the survey team which considered bogus expenses. The P a g e | 28 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal assessee could not establish that these expenses were genuine as the survey revealed that the trust booked certain expenses in order to take out cash for the personal use of trustees. Ground being identical as in AY 2012-13 were dismissed.

ITA No. 377/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2014-15)

1 Here also no return was filed. The AO rejected the exemption u/s 11 and 12 and also made addition of Rs 74,93,688/-.The request of the assessee to admit certain additional evidences in the form of ledger account of expenses was denied and appeal was dismissed.

ITA No. 376/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2015-16)

1 Return was not filed. The AO made addition of surplus of Rs 17,06,421/- as per Income and Expenditure account denying the claim u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and also made addition of Rs 96,60,622/-on account of inflation of expenses and Rs 73,20,258/- as suppression of receipts as admitted during survey operations. The request of the assessee to admit certain additional evidences in the form of ledger account of expenses was denied and appeal was dismissed. He further observed that the issue of addition of Rs 73,20,258/- on account of suppression of receipt was liable to be dismissed as per detailed discussion in appeal for AY 2012-13. P a g e | 29 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

ITA No. 375/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2016-17)

1 No return was filed. The AO made addition Rs 4,63,817/-0n account of surplus denying exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act besides making addition of Rs 52,92,163/- and Rs 84,36,654/- on account of inflation of expenses and suppression of receipt as admitted during survey operations. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the modified grounds taking the view that all such issues were already considered and adjudicated by him in appeal for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. 31.ITA No. 376/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2015-16)

1 No return was filed. Addition of Rs 17,06,121/- was made being surplus in the Income and Expenditure account by denying the claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the issues were already considered in appeal for AY 2012- 13.Addtion of Rs 96,60,622/- was made for inflation of expenses and Rs 73,20,258/-was added on account of suppression of receipts .The ld.CIT(A) based on the decision for AY 2012-13 dismissed all the grounds. 32.ITA No. 375/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2016-17)

1 No return was filed. Addition of Rs. 46,38,817/- was made being surplus in the Income and Expenditure account by denying the P a g e | 30 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the application as the issues were already considered in appeal for AY 2012- 13.Addtion of Rs 52,92,153/- was made for inflation of expenses and Rs 84,36,654/-/-was added on account of suppression of receipts .The ld.CIT(A) based on the decision for AY 2012-13 dismissed all the grounds.

ITA No. 374/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2017-18)

1 No return was filed .Addition of Rs 86,56,176/- was made being surplus in the Income and Expenditure account by denying the claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the application as the issues were already considered in appeal for AY 2012-

With regard to all the above appeals from AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18,we are of the considered view that our decision rendered in appeal for AY 2012-13(supra) and also in respect of the additional ground ,we find that the decision applies mutatis mutandis to all the above appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18. Accordingly, all these appeals are likewise partly allowed.

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.