Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA
Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Dass, Adv. Department by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17-07-2018 Date of pronouncement : 26-07-2018 O R D E R
PER R. K. PANDA, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2016 of CIT(A)- I, Noida relating to assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non-appearance. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide MA No.409/Del/2017 order dated 09.03.2018 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an Educational Trust and running a Distance Education Centre in the name of M/s Krishna Education Centre. It filed its return of income on 30.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs.2,43,533/- in the status of AOP. The Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order made addition of Rs.25,33,713/- on the ground that the assessee has not offered to tax the difference which was found by reconciling the gross receipts.
In appeal, ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :-
“5. The grievance of the appellant against addition of Rs.25,33,713/- which was found not to be offered to tax in course of reconciliation of gross receipts and the income of the appellant is not maintainable as the appellant is relying upon the said reconciliation to explain its net taxable income. Since the outcome of the reconciliation done by the ld. A.O. is being relied upon by the appellant, the appellant cannot question the same merely because the same has resulted in addition of the disputed amount. The ld. A.O. has examined all the aspects of the gross receipts of the appellant, the money remitted to client universities and the service charges received by the appellant and has noted discrepancies in the same to the extent of Rs.25,33,713/-. The ld. A.O. has painfully prepared the reconciliation statement which is incorporated in the impugned assessment order and in view of that the grievance of the appellant is without any merit or substance.”
Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :-
“1. That the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the addition of Rs 25,33,713/- on account of difference in Fees receipts on the following grounds; 1.1 That the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in accepting the appellant’s share of the receipts from JRN-RVD University as Rs.48,51,000/- ignoring the fact that the appellant have given the fee concession of Rs.12,71,854/- to the students and the remaining amount i.e. Rs.35,79,146/- is the fee receipts which is to be considered as appellant’s share of Fee Receipts. 1.2 That the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in accepting the appellant's share of fee receipts from IASE Deemed University in total ignoring the fact that the appellant have given the fee concession of Rs. 4,40,050/- to the students and also returned Rs.3,80,650/- to the students who have left and the same is required to be reduced from the Appellant’s share of Fee receipts from IASE Deemed University while calculating the receipts of the appellant.
1.3 That the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in accepting the share of fee receipts of Rs.1,58,259/- which were received by the appellant after 31.03.2011 in the relevant assessment year ignoring the fact that the appellant have already considered the said receipts in the subsequent Assessment year 2012-13. 2. In view of all these & such other grounds, which may be taken at the time of hearing, the appeal may please be allowed & Justice rendered.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee had refunded the fees to certain students and also given concession in fees to certain other students which could not be explained before the lower authorities.
Further, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a cryptic one since he has not considered the various arguments advanced before him along with documentary evidences.
He accordingly submitted that given an opportunity the assessee in a position to substantiate its case and reconcile the difference, if any.
Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
After considering the rival arguments made by both the sides, I find the order of the ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by producing the documentary evidences to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding fee concession/refund of fees, etc. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly.
The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 26th July, 2018.