Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO for A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2018-19. The AO had made additions of Rs. 3,98,86,341/- by treating cash deposits/time deposits as unexplained under Sections 69/69A and added interest income. The assessee, a government-aided degree college, claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiad) and stated that the cash deposits were student fees.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for A.Y. 2015-16, confirming the deletion of additions and allowing exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), following the principle of consistency and previous assessments. For A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as the facts were in pari materia, also dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether a government-aided educational institution is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiad) for its income, and if cash deposits/time deposits representing student fees can be treated as unexplained income under Sections 69/69A/56.
Sections Cited
10(23C)(iiiab), 10(23C)(iiiad), 139(4C)(e), 69, 69A, 56
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SUBHASH MALGURIA
(A). These two appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed off through this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience.
A.Y. 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 04.07.2024 and pertains to A.Y. 2018-19 dated 05.07.2024 respectively. Grounds of appeal are as under: -
1. Ld. CIT(Appeals), NEAC has erred in law and has wrongly allowed the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) in respect of income of the appellant since as per provisions of Section 139(4C)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiab) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall furnish a return of such income of the previous year, if the total income of the assessee to assessable, without giving effect to the provisions of section 10 and exceeds maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, therefore the order dated 04.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC is not acceptable and further appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), NEAC is recommended in this case.
2. The appellant craves right to add, alter and/or amend any grounds which may be taken at the time of hearing.”
1. Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and has wrongly allowed the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) in respect of income of the appellant, since as per provisions of Section 139(4C)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any & 533/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 university or other educational Institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiab) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall furnish a return of such income of the previous year, if the total income of the assessee is assessable, without giving effect to the provisions of section 10 and exceeds maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, therefore the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC is not acceptable and further appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC is recommended in this case.
The appellant craves right to add, alter and/or amend any grounds which may be taken at the time of hearing.” (A.1) In A.Y. 2015-16, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer; holding as under: -
Being in the nature of fee. The appellant has filed submission on 20.06.2024 in support of the grounds. The appellant’s submission is reproduced as under:
& 533/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 6 (A.2) The present appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 has been filed by Revenue against impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, copy of Income & Expenditure statement was filed from assessee’s side. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue relied on the assessment order. The Ld. Counsel relied on impugned order. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is just and fair having regard to applicable law and facts as well as circumstances of the case. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16. The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16 is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
(B) The facts and circumstances for A.Y. 2018-19 are in pari materia with A.Y. 2015-16 and our findings for A.Y. 2015-16 will apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2018-19 also no material has been brought for our consideration by either side to persuade us to take a view in A.Y. 2018-19, different from view taken by us in A.Y. 2015-16.
(B.1) Accordingly, consistent with our order for A.Y. 2015-16, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018-19 also; and thus, appeal of Revenue for A.Y. 2018-19 is also dismissed.
(C) In the result, both appeals are dismissed, for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/12/2025.