Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) Swami Darshanand Institute of Income Tax Officer, Management and Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. PAN:AALAS6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department by Shri Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 11.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the CIT(A) in short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 19.05.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society engaged in imparting education. The AO based on the information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.93,10,000/- in the saving Bank Account maintained with a Central Bank of India which is not declared and thus case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, submissions were made by the assessee wherein it is claimed that this account pertained to other society and all the deposits are duly 2 IT No.129/DDN/2025 Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology vs.ITO recorded in its books of account however the AO has not accepted the claim of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.93,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money of the assessee. In first appeal, the assessee claimed that the account related to some other society and not pertained to the assessee society. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee and made the addition for the same.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:
1. That the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 93, 10, 000/- as against returned income of Nil..
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, in as much as, the instant reassessment proceedings were without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions as envisaged under the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that the proceedings initiated under section 148A(b)/(d) of the Act were without application of mind, with no fresh tangible material and were issued at the behest of superior authority, further, there were many factual and legal inaccuracies in the reasons recorded which also shows total non application of mind by superior authority in granting approval for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment proceedings are a mere pretence and deserves to be quashed.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that instant proceedings initiated by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) were invalid and void ab initio, as the same ought to have been initiated by faceless assessing officer (FAO).
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 93, 10, 000/- under section 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account, which addition is based on misappreciation of facts and deserves to be deleted, as such. 4.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee/appellant was not doing any activity during impugned assessment year and the transaction as alleged by the AO is not 3 IT No.129/DDN/2025 Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology vs.ITO being carried out at all by the appellant/assessee and the addition so sustained by learned CIT (A) is purely based on suspicion and surmises. 4.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid addition purely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures and arbitrarily brushing aside the submissions/materials/ evidences filed by the assessee appellant and hence, the addition so sustained is unsustainable and liable to be deleted.
5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining additions in the hands of assessee appellant, without giving any fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and further, erred in sustaining the aforesaid addition purely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures and hence, the addition so sustained made is unsustainable and liable to be deleted.”
The Ground of appeal No. 1 to 4 are with respect to the addition of Rs. 90,10,000/- made on account of deposits in the bank account which are not declared, therefore, they are taken together for consideration.
5. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that bank account No. 3260099465 with Central Bank of India, deposit in which were treated as made by the assessee was actually belonged to the other society namely, Mahavidalaya Sabha Jwalapur (Unit as Gurukul Mahavidalaya) having PAN-AAATM2740D. He submits that the assessee society has PAN-AALAS6789G and the said bank account was opened by that society on 12.06.2013. The Ld. AR submits that the said account was duly incorporated in the books of account of Mahavidalaya Sabha Jwalapur society and the same is appearing in the financial statements of the aforesaid society and copy of the Balance Sheet was also produced before the lower authorities as well as before us wherein this account is duly appearing. The Ld. AR submits that inadvertently before the bank, KYC details of the assessee society were updated therefore, the assessee society has filed a letter to the Bank Manager for change of the account holder details in the said account. The ld. AR drew our attention to the letter issued by the bank manager duly confirming that the said account is related to Mahavidalaya Sabha Jwalapur and connected to 4 IT No.129/DDN/2025 Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology vs.ITO PAN : AAATM2740D, copy of the said letter is placed in the paper book page 91 filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submits that the lower authorities had failed to appreciate these facts and merely for the reason that in KYC information of this account, PAN of the assessee society was wrongly stated. He, therefore, prayed for the deletion of the addition so made.
6. On the other hand, the Sr. DR supports the orders of the lower authorities and submits that since, in the KYC information, PAN of the assessee society is appearing, therefore, the said account pertained to assessee who had not disclosed the transactions appearing in the said account in its books of accounts, therefore, he requested to confirm the orders of the lower authorities.
Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the approval granted by the governing body namely AICTE i.e., All India Institute of Technology Education vide letter dated 16th April, 2014, available at paper book page 31, approval was granted for academic year 2014- 15 to the assessee society. In the said approval, name of institute is stated as “Swami Darshananand Institute of Management Technology” and the society running this institute is stated as “Mahavidyalaya Sabha”. The assessee is one of the institute running Engineering College in its name i.e. “Swami Darshananand Institute of Management Technology” having PAN AALAS6789G which is promoted by the society “Mahavidyalaya Sabha” Jwalapur (Gurukul Mahavidyalaya) who is having different PAN i.e. AAATM2740D and running other educational institutions like Sanskrit School etc., and is maintaining separate books of accounts which are placed in the PB Pages 84-85. From the perusal of the same, we find that account No.3260099456 with Central Bank of India is duly appearing in the Balance Sheet of the society namely “Mahavidyalaya Sabha, Jwalapur (Gurukul Mahavidyalaya)” and corresponding entries appearing in the said account are duly accounted for and reflected in its 5 IT No.129/DDN/2025 Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology vs.ITO income and expenditure account. Further the bank manager of Central bank of India in terms of the certificate dt. 24.5.2023 also clarify that this account is connected to the PAN AAATM2740D which is of the other society. Therefore, this account cannot be treated as belonged to the assessee society.
In view of the above facts and discussions, we are of the view that the bank account No. 3260099465 with Central Bank of India is belonged to the society namely “Mahavidyalaya Sabha, Jwalapur (Gurukul Mahavidyalaya)” and therefore no addition for the deposit made in the said account could be made in the hands of the assessee society. Accordingly, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition. All the grounds of the appeal taken by the assessee are thus allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.12.2025.