MERULING SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ,SATARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2843/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Meruling Shikshan Sanstha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, At Jawalwadi, Exemption Ward-1(1), Post Medha, Taluka Satara, Pune Maharashtra – 415012 PAN : AACTM8142R Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT (virtual) Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 02.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 23.09.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 03.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

“General Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessed income of Rs. 3,66,29,700 as against the returned income of Nil, by sustaining the additions made

2 ITA No.2843/PUN/2025 Meruling Shikshan Sanstha

u/s 69A as unexplained money and without appreciating the facts, evidences and explanations placed on record. Grounds on Technical Aspects 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating the fact that the learned jurisdictional AO (JAO) erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 dated 27/03/2021 as the same is not in accordance with provisions of section 151A of ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that, as per CBDT Notification issued under section 151A of ITA, 1961, notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 ought to have been issued by NFAC and not by JAO as so held in case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s ACIT (Bombay HC- 162 taxmann.com 225). As such, the appellant contends that the present reassessment proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed. Grounds on merits: 3. The Id. IT authorities erred on facts in alleging quantum of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts of Rs. 3,66,29,700. Appellant contends that quantum of cash deposits in bank account is Rs. 3,20,46,510 and the same is out of an explained, genuine source. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,20,46,510/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained money. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had fully explained the source of deposits as fees received from students and contra-withdrawals from other bank accounts of the Trust. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in confirming the addition u/s 69A amounting to Rs. 1,82,95,510/- out of the total cash deposits of Rs. 3.20 crores made during the year, despite the appellant having duly explained during appellate proceedings that the said deposits were made out of corresponding cash withdrawals. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 137.51 Lakhs regarding deposits in Bank. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the explanation that these amounts represented tuition fees directly deposited by students into the college bank accounts, which were duly recorded in the books of account and offered as income in the return filed. 7. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO failed to appreciate that Rs. 50.83 lakh out of the impugned addition pertained to cash withdrawals, which are debit transactions in the appellant's own books/bank account and, being self-explanatory in nature, did not warrant any separate addition. 8. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that, out of the total impugned addition of Rs. 3,66,29,700/-, a sum of Rs. 0.49 lakh represented bank interest income, which was duly disclosed and required no further explanation.

3 ITA No.2843/PUN/2025 Meruling Shikshan Sanstha

Residual Grounds 9. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing, in the interests of substantial justice.”

4 ITA No.2843/PUN/2025 Meruling Shikshan Sanstha

assessment order itself where on one hand in the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act ld. Assessing Officer is referring to details of various transactions for cash deposits and cash withdrawal but ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition for total amount of cash withdrawal and cash deposit treating them to be unexplained cash deposit. Ld. Assessing Officer has also not considered the disallowed depreciation at Rs.8,37,614/- but in the final computation of taxable income he made addition of Rs.3,18,603/- and there is no detail of the addition of Rs.3,18,603/- in the assessment order. We also note that ld.CIT(A) has also not considered the assessee’s submissions that ld. Assessing Officer erroneously added the entire transaction of Rs.366.29 lakh appearing in the information available with him without considering year-wise or transaction- wise break-up of the credits. Our attention has also been drawn to various details furnished in the paper book running into 303 pages which also contains the details of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee trust holding with Karad Urban Bank, IDBI and SBI. Cash book of B Pharm and Csh book of D- Pharm. It is also stated that there are various transactions in which the student fees received in one account has been withdrawn and deposited in the other bank account. However, all these transactions need to be examined by the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and then only final conclusion can be drawn as to whether the assessee has been able to explain the alleged cash deposits/cash withdrawals. 7. We therefore deem it appropriate to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication on examination of the facts mentioned above. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings, ld.

5 ITA No.2843/PUN/2025 Meruling Shikshan Sanstha

JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 02nd day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 02nd June, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.06.02 12:27:41 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune