NAVPARGANA RAJPUROHIT SAMAJ BHAMDHAM TRUST KALANDRI,RAJASTHAN vs. I.T.O WARD (EXEMPTION), RAJASTHAN

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY; V.P. :

The above noted appeals relating to same assessee arise out of separate orders, all dated 09-09-2025, of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19.

2 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2. At the outset, we will deal ITA Nos. 853 and 856/Jodh/2025 as they are of identical in nature. With reference to ITA No. 856/Jodh/2025, the basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of appeal in limine on the ground of delay. Explaining the reasons for delay, learned counsel drew our attention to affidavit filed by the assessee. It is stated that the appeals were originally filed within the period of limitation, however, mentioning the nature of order as penalty order. For this reason, the appeals were dismissed by learned first appellate authority. He submitted, against the said dismissal orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Simultaneously, the assessee filed fresh appeals before the first appellate authority, mentioning correct particulars of assessment orders. He submitted, while considering the appeal filed by the assessee, the ITAT directed the assessee to file fresh appeals with a correct particular. He submitted, in spite of libery granted by the ITAT, the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay. 3. On perusal of the facts and materials available on record, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. It is noticed and the assessee received the assessment orders on 25.03.2021, and the appeals were filed on 28-12-2021 within the permissible time limit due to corona. However, assessee mentioned

3 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) incorrect particulars by referring to non-existent penalty orders. Due to such mistake, the appeals were dismissed and the assessee again filed fresh appeals with the correct particulars. Thus, in our view, the delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide reasons, hence, needs to be condoned.

4 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) the Act is under consideration of learned CIT(E), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issues relating to assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after learned CIT(E) takes a decision on assessee's application seeking registration under section 12AA of the Act. 5. Insofar as ITA No. 855/Jodh/2025 relating to Assessment Year 2015-2016 is concerned, the assessee in addition to grounds raised challenging the addition made of Rs.3,28,04,000/-, has also challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. 6. Briefly stated, assessee is stated to be a Charitable Trust. For the assessment year under dispute, as alleged, the assessee did not file any return of income. However, based on information available on the Insight portal of the Department, it was found that in the year under consideration, the assessee had made total cash deposits of Rs.3,28,04,000/- in its bank account. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. After issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. Alleging that the assessee did not adduce supporting evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, the Assessing

5 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) Officer added back an amount of Rs. 3,28,04,000/- to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority, however, it was confirmed. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the actual amount of cash deposited in the bank account is much less than the addition made. He submitted, the actual deposits are to the extent of Rs.1,70,26,000/-. 8. Drawing our attention to the additional grounds, learned counsel submitted, for this reason, the reopening of assessment is invalid, as the Assessing Officer has mentioned incorrect figure in the reasons recorded.. 9. Insofar as the merits of the addition is concerned, learned counsel submitted, given an opportunity, the assessee can demonstrate before the Assessing Officer that the actual cash deposit is Rs.1,70,26,000/- and can also explain the source of the said cash deposit. Thus, he submitted, the matter can be restored back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 10. Learned CIT(DR) relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Insofar as the issue raised in the additional ground, we find that the

6 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) addition ultimately made by the Assessing Officer matches with the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded. Insofar as assessee’s claim that the actual amount of cash deposit is Rs.1,70,26,000/-, on perusal of materials on record, we find that in response to show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee did not file any objection. Before the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee made a submission that actual amount of cash deposit of Rs.1,70,26,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer has recorded a factual finding that despite sufficient opportunities granted to the assessee, no compliance was made. Thus, in our view, the issue whether the amount added by the Assessing Officer represents actual cash deposits in the bank account or not has to be demonstrated by the assessee by furnishing the bank account and other supporting evidences. From the assessment order, it appears that the assessee had not brought sufficient materials on record to demonstrate such fact. On the part of the Assessing Officer, he could have made enquiry with the concerned bank to ascertain actual amount of cash deposits. Since facts relating to the actual amount of cash deposit are in dispute and factual position relating to the issue lacks clarity due to lack of proper compliance by the assessee and also to some extent, lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of

7 ITA No. 853, 855 and 856 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20) learned first appellate authority and restore the issue relating to addition made to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue relating to validity of reopening of assessment is kept open. 12. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar) Accountant Member Vice President

Dated : 07/08/ 2026. AKS/- True Copy

Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,