ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJ RISHI BHARTIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 1167/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 September 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, a state university, had cash deposits of Rs 68,20,817 and time deposits of Rs 7,51,93,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these as unexplained money under Section 69A, adding Rs 56,192 interest, and assessing total income at Rs 8,20,70,009. The assessee claimed cash deposits were fees and time deposits were from its own bank accounts. Before the CIT(A), the assessee produced its Balance Sheet and Receipt and Payment Account for the year ended 31.03.2018. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs 7,51,93,000, finding the time deposits were from the assessee's own accounts and disclosed in its financial statements. However, he sustained the addition of Rs 68,20,817 for cash deposits, holding the explanation unsatisfactory but not attracting Section 69A. He also set aside the assessment for verification of exemption claims under Sections 11, 12, or 10(23C)(iiiab).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2, finding the Revenue's grievance about admitting additional evidence without opportunity to the AO well-founded but not causing prejudice. The Tribunal noted that the AO had already verified the bank statements, and the financial statements confirmed the source of funds for time deposits. A remand for the AO to verify what was already established would serve no purpose. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs 7,51,93,000. It reasoned that money moved between the assessee's own bank accounts to create a term deposit, where both accounts and the deposit are reflected in its financial statements, cannot be characterized as unexplained money under Section 69A. The source of time deposits was explained. For cash deposits of Rs 68,20,817, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) had sustained the addition under normal provisions, not under Section 69A. The CIT(A)'s reservations related to the adequacy of the explanation, not that the cash was outside the books. The deposits were in the assessee's disclosed account, and the Receipt and Payment Account showed receipts under the relevant heads. The AO never found the money unrecorded. Thus, the condition for Section 69A was not met, and the assessee had not appealed the sustenance of the amount. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s direction on this amount or the interest. Ground No. 3 concerning the power to set aside was dismissed as academic. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine the exemption claim was left undisturbed as it did not disturb any sustained addition and the Revenue was not prejudiced. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld in its entirety.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was justified in law and on facts in holding that the addition under Section 69A is unsustainable, despite the assessee failing to furnish books of account and supporting documents during assessment, providing an unsatisfactory explanation for cash deposits, and failing to discharge its onus. 2. Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it or calling for a remand report. 3. Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction, as no power to set aside an assessment is available under Section 251 of the Income-tax Act where the assessment is not made under Section 144 of the Act. Assessee's arguments: Not recorded as no one appeared for the assessee. Revenue's arguments: The financial statements were admitted without reasons or opportunity for the AO to examine them, violating Rule 46A. The CIT(A) could not have removed the addition from Section 69A after finding the explanation for cash deposits unsatisfactory. Section 251(1)(a) does not grant power to set aside an assessment not made under Section 144.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 251,Section 11,Section 12,Section 12A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

PER :PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 10.02.2026 arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Mats

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,187 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →