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

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

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

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 ITA No. 353/Ind/2025 - 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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →