SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, RANGE - 1, VARANASI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.118/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Sampurnanand Sanskrit vs. DC/ACIT, Vishwavidyalaya, Jagatganj, Range-1, Varanasi Varanasi PAN: AAAJS3379Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Ankur Srivastava & Sh. M.M. Srivastava, Advocates Revenue by: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer passed under section 144 for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 12.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal without appreciating or considering the merits of the appeal. It is humbly prayed that the order of CIT Appeal being erroneous may kindly be set aside. 2. The Learned CIT Appeal as well as authority below erred in law as well as on facts in treating the fee received from students as cash credit consequently the addition u/s 69 made to the extent of Rs. 1918611 being unlawful may kindly be deleted. 3. That the appellant being assessed as (status) of ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON and its income being exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) read with rule 2BBB the fee received from students being exempt the addition made u/s 69A is 1

ITA No.118/VNS/2024 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 unlawful and liable to be deleted. It is humbly prayed that addition may kindly be deleted and appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal before the hearing of appeal.”

ITA No.118/VNS/2024 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 on account of receipt of fee etc., from students in its bank account. The assessee could not comply with notices issued by the Department because; i. The assessee was not aware of online notices issued by the Department. ii. There was no full-fledged Finance Officer in the University appointed by the U.P. Government. iii. The part time Finance Officer had also retired on 31.10.2019. It was submitted that the ld. AO was mistaken in adding back the fees received from its students as unexplained cash deposits in his hand within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) noted that several opportunities have been given to the assessee but the assessee had not made compliance. He therefore, relying upon his observations in para 4 and 5 of his order and applying the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in CIT vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax reported in (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP), held that the law assist only those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep over them, he therefore, dismissed the appeals of the assessee and upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with these orders that had been passed by the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Ankur Srivastava and Sh. M.M. Srivastava, Advocates (hereinafter referred to as the ld. ARs) appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the assessee was an Uttar Pradesh State Government University which was wholly and substantially financed by the Uttar Pradesh Government and therefore, its income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab) r.w.r. 2BBB. It draws its income from fees from students and grants from the U.P. Government. The students had directly deposited examination fees of Rs. 6,24,475/- 3

ITA No.118/VNS/2024 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 (including SBNs of Rs. 2,45,000/-) into Pariksha Mad Private Bank A/c No. 50259911245 during the demonetization period. The University also accepted fees at the cash counter of the University and all fees collected in cash at cash counters in a day were deposited on the next banking day into the Samanya Bank A/c No. 210622803895. In this way, the University had deposited fees collected from students of Rs. 12,94,136/- into Samanya Mad Bank A/c No. 21062803895 during demonetization period. The ld. AO had added the entire fees amounting to Rs. 19,18,611/- in the above two bank accounts by treating them as unexplained money, but the same were duly reflected in the cash book of the University and accounted for in the books of accounts, which were maintained on day-to-day basis. Section 69A only applied when the money was not recorded in the books of accounts and hence no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Our attention was invited to various decisions which were cited by the ld. ARs in their submissions. Copies of the statement of accounts and the deposit slips were filed as part of the paper book. In addition, it was pointed out that the reason that the assessee could not make compliance with the notices issued by the lower authorities, was because they were not aware of any notice issued by the ld. CIT(A). There was no permanent Finance Officer, additional charge was with Professors temporarily and they had not reported any such notice issued. The present Finance Officer only came to know about the I.T. proceedings when the order of the ld. CIT(A) was downloaded on 22.06.2024, since the demand was being pressed for payment. The appeal before this Court was filed after downloading the order of the ld. CIT(A) on 1.07.2024 and as such there was no delay. However, any delay in filing the appeal was only on account of this. It was therefore, prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned.

ITA No.118/VNS/2024 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 5. On the other hand, Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) submitted that the non-compliance by the assessee to the assessment proceedings, the appeal proceedings and even the delayed filing of the appeal showed the callous disregard of the assessee for income tax proceedings. She pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable because it has been filed after a delay of 311 days that was not properly explained by the assessee and the assessee had also not made any representation before the lower authorities. Accordingly, she prayed that the appeal may be dismissed in limine. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons cited by the ld. ARs for the delay in the filing of the appeal. We observe that the delay was occasioned by the fact that there was no full- fledged Finance Officer appointed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the University who could keep track of the online notices issued by the Department and that the part time officer had also retired on 31.10.2019. The charge was held by various Professors in temporary capacity and they had neither appreciated the importance of expeditious filing of the appeal against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), nor intimated the fact of those orders to the concerned authorities. The affidavit states that the Finance Officer only came to know about the same after he downloaded a copy of the order from the Income Tax Portal and thereafter filed the appeal. Considering that the assessee is a government institution where the establishment work is to be managed by a Finance Officer, we hold that the absence of a regular incumbent could be a valid ground for the delay in the filing of the appeal and we accordingly condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. 7. On coming to the merits of the case, we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has apparently mixed up the facts of the assessee’s case with that of an other case in doing a cut paste job and referred to deposit of Rs. 2,49,91,805/- 5

ITA No.118/VNS/2024 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 deposited in the Union Bank of India and also confirmed such addition, when the facts of the case are that the assessee had made deposits in its accounts maintained with Allahabad Bank and that too of only Rs. 19,18,611/-. It is, therefore, apparent that the orders of the ld. CIT(A) have been passed without application of mind and are therefore unsustainable on this account. Considering the fact that the assessee is a Government University which is exempt from tax as per the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab), we believe that it was incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to call for further information from the assessee to examine this claim which had been placed before him. His failure to do so, renders the order unsustainable and mechanical. Accordingly, we quash the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and we restore the matter back to his file so that he may consider the submissions of the assessee alongwith the evidences that have been filed in support of such submissions and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. As the matter stands restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14.05.2026 in the Open Court. Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:14/05/2026 Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR , ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S. 6