SHRI PARSHVANATH DIGAMBAR JAIN DHARMIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHA,RAM GALI, NEEMUCH CANT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 353/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 November 2025AY 2017-201811 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing, consider the submissions made in the Written Synopsis, and any other submissions the assessee might present. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal stated that the AO would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law if the assessee failed to comply. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Parshavnath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 20.03.2025, which upheld the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the AO under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO made an addition of Rs. 76,38,102/- under Section 69A on account of unexplained money in bank accounts. The assessee contended that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte. The assessee had filed submissions and documentary evidence before the AO regarding the nature and source of deposits, which it claimed were not considered. The deposits included cash and cheques received as voluntary offerings for temple renovation and construction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 76,38,102/- made by the AO under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money, is sustainable, considering the assessee's submissions regarding the nature and source of the deposits. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the addition is illegal and unsustainable because the AO failed to consider the submissions and documentary evidence provided, which explained that the deposits were voluntary offerings for temple construction and development. These offerings were collected through donation boxes, 'Boli' amounts, and cheques, and were capital in nature, not taxable income. The assessee relied on its bye-laws and the fact that it is a religious trust. The assessee also cited various ITAT decisions in support of its claim. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly state its contentions in the provided text, but it supported the AO's addition. The AO's findings, confirmed by the CIT(A), were that the assessee did not file a return, was not registered under Section 12A, and failed to provide explanations for the credit entries in its bank account, leading to the addition under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, & Priyal Jain ARs
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Neemuch [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 2. Learned Representative of both sides were heard and case record perused.

3.

Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the orders passed by lower authorities and demonstrated that the AO as well as the CIT(A) have passed orders ex- parte to assessee. Thereafter, he narrated that although the assessee filed vehement submissions in writing to AO during assessment-proceeding explaining the queries raised by AO [Pages 10-102 of Paper-Book] but the AO has not considered the same and made a hefty addition of Rs. 76,38,102/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of deposits in bank a/cs. Ld. AR then explained the factual aspects of impugned deposits in bank a/cs with reference to the documents held in Paper-Book as filed by assessee during assessment-proceeding. He also filed a Written-Synopsis as per liberty given by bench. The Synopsis so filed contains the submissions made during hearing and the same is scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference:

Page 2 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 3 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 4 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 5 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 6 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 7 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 8 of 11 Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 Page 9 of 11

Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha - AY 2017-18 4. Having made submissions on above lines, the Ld. AR proposed that the present case is fit for remand to AO. Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the proposal of Ld. AR but made a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee, consider the submissions made by assessee in Written- Synopsis as re-produced above and also any other submission as the assessee may choose to submit and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 27/11/2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →