SHREE ANAND MANGAL VIDHYA PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2, PUNE, PUNE

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.11.2024 which in turn is arising out of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 09.11.2018.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the taxable income of the appellant at Rs. 42,84,886/- as against returned income of Rs. 3,753/- The additions of Rs. 42,81,133/- made by the Ld. AO on various counts is patently illegal and unsustainable in law and the same may please be deleted. 2] The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal merely on the ground that the appellant allegedly did not furnish the submission before the Ld. AD without discussing the merits of the case. 2.1] The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the appellant has duly furnished most of the information before the Ld. AO and that the Ld. AO is not correct in stating that no submission was made by the appellant. The Ld. AO erred in not taking cognizance of the submission of the appellant even when no assessment order was actually passed by him. 3]The Ld. AO/CIT(A) has erred in treating the amount of cash deposits as undisclosed income for the year even when it was duly accounted for the in the financials furnished during the assessment proceedings. 3.1] The Ld. AO/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the cash was deposited out of Membership Deposits collected from proposed members which was subsequently refunded as required approval could not be obtained for the institutes of the trust. 4] The Ld. AO/CIT(A) has erred in treating the credit transactions in A/c. with Janata Sahakari Bank amounting of Rs. 4,23,410/- as "Unexplained credit' even when it was duly accounted for in the books and was also fully explainable from the financials itself. 5] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.

Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Based on the information about the credits including cash deposits in the Bank account of the assessee which is a public trust (registered on 16.05.2008), held with Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., and The Baramati Urban Co-op Bank Ltd., the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny proceedings. Since the assessee did not file regular return of income, assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act were carried out and against the returned income of Rs. 3,753/- declared in the return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AO made additions of Rs. 42,81,133/- Though the assessee could not place necessary details before the AO, however in the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) assessee furnished all the details to explain the source of alleged credits/cash deposits in the bank account and these details were filed online under the E-proceedings and the copy of the same are placed in the Paper Book from page No. 4-34. The online details filed by the assessee seems to have gone unnoticed by NFAC as the additions made by AO have been confirmed observing that the appellant did not file the necessary details.

We are therefore of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have gone through the documents filed before it and should have decided the issues raised after dealing with those details and then passed a speaking order. Since this exercise has not been carried out by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to raise all the issues on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also after going through the details furnished by the assessee. However Ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report if the documents filed by the assessee are in the nature of additional evidence. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.