FUTURE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST,SONARPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), EXEMPTION KOLKATA, PARKSTREET
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and AO failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the extra fees. The Tribunal noted that the fees were duly accounted for and deposited through banking channels.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered trust for education, declared nil income. The AO added Rs. 52,25,000/- received as extra fees for management quota seats, stating it was not reflected in the books. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of extra fees as unexplained income was justified when the assessee provided evidence of its accounting and banking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, VP & Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM]
ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 12.10.2023 for AY 2013-14 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by DCIT (exemption), circle-1, Kolkata dated 22.02.2016.
The only issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.52,25,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s. 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act
The facts in brief are that the assessee is a registered trust u/s. 12A as well as u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act with the main object of the trust is imparting of education. During the year, the assessee filed return of income on24.09.2013 declaring total income as nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for the details of students admitted through management quota. In response, Shri Silajit Ghosh, Chairman of the Trust submitted a list showing extra fees charged for each stream and submitted that such fee was within the purview of order passed by Government of West Bengal, Department of Higher Education. However, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that such higher fee of Rs.52,25,000/- was not reflected in the Income & Expenditure Account and, therefore, added the same u/s. 69A of the Act in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) dated 22.02.2016 by ignoring the facts on record.
The appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was also dismissed on the ground that assessee did not furnish any details/information to controvert the finding given by the AO which was framed the assessment as ex parte and dismissed.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee being engaged in the activity of imparting higher education is approved u/s. 12A as well as u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The AO during the assessment proceedings, observed that assessee has received extra fees for Rs.52,25,000/- which are not reflected in the books of account, and was accordingly added u/s. 69A of the Act being received out of the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without taking into consideration the submissions uploaded by the assessee on line, the details and copies whereof were furnished before the Bench during the course of hearing. We note that the assessee furnished details/informations before the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.03.2022, 24.08.2023 and 09.10.2023 qua the fee which was added by the AO. The assessee has also filed the details of the management quota fee which is available at page 93 of the paper book. Besides, the assessee has furnished the details of cash deposits amounting to Rs.52,74,800/- on various dates into the assessee’s bank account along with amount, statement and copies whereof are available at pages 35 to 83 of the paper book to corroborate the fact that the money received by the assessee trust through banking channel. Considering these facts, we find that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and against the facts on record. Even the submissions of the assessee along with the evidences were not considered at all. Likewise the submission of the assessee escaped the attention of the AO also. We observe from the records that the fees of Rs.52,25,000/- were duly accounted for by the assessee.
Considering these facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.52,25,000/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2024
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026