M/S.CHILDREN'S EDUCATION SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 M/s. Children’s Education Society, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of #40, I phase, Income-tax [OSD], J P Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001. Central Range, PAN : AAATC 1553 A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2018 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-14, LTU, Bangalore, dated 29.07.2016 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.1 The assessee AOP, is a society registered on 30.09.1974 under the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960, running several educational institutions. For Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.03.2007 declaring loss of Rs.1,52,63,919/- under the head ‘other sources’. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and the case was taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year. The assessment was completed

Page 2 of 4 u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 31.12.2008, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.19,51,54,700/-. On further appeals, a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its order in and 141/Bang/2010 dated 20.05.2010 allowed the assessee partial relief and remitted the addition of Rs.19,95,000/-, on account of unexplained expenditure to the file of the AO directing that the AO should re-consider the issue in the light of the finality reached on the protective addition of the same amount made in the hands of Shri. Narasaraju.

2.2. The consequent order of assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 was passed u/s 143(3) dated 21.11.2011 wherein the assessee’s loss was determined at (-) Rs.1,32,68,919/-, and the amount of Rs.19,55,000/- was added as it was held to be unexplained expenditure. On appeal, the CIT(A)-14, LTU, Bangalore, vide order dated 29.07.2016 dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-14, LTU, Bangalore, dated 29.07.2016 for Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee has field this appeal before the Tribunal wherein it has raised the following grounds:

1. The order of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.19,95,000/- as unexplained expenditure, which was not upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT and remanded the matter for fresh consideration under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. The addition is purely on suspicion and surmise, assumptions and presumptions and requires to be deleted. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.

Page 3 of 4 3.2.1 In these grounds (supra), the sole issue for consideration and adjudication is with regard to the addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs.19,95,000/- which was made substantively in the hands of the assessee and protectively in the hands of Shri. S. Narasaraju. The learned AR of the assessee fairly conceded that this issue stands covered against the assessee in view of the decision of CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore dated 07.12.2009 in the case of Shri. S. Narasaraju for Assessment Year 2006-07, deleting the protective addition of the same amount of unexplained expenditure of Rs.19,55,000/-. It is submitted that this issue has attained finality as no further appeal has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid decision of the CIT(A).

3.2.2 In the case on hand, we find that the CIT(A) has upheld the addition/disallowance of Rs.19,95,000/- following the aforesaid decision of the CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore, dated 07.12.2009. Except for raising the grounds (supra) before us, the assessee has not been able to controvert the finding of the authorities below in respect of their addition of unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs.19,95,000/-. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the authorities below in making the said addition of Rs.19,95,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and they are accordingly dismissed.