DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , KOLKATA

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee during the assessment proceedings has inadvertently stated that interest income of Rs.4,24,322/- was not included in the return of income although the same was duly included in the return of income under the head ‘Misc. receipts’, thus the addition of Rs.4,24,322/- is unwarranted.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered u/s. 12AA of the Act and engaged in running educational institution in the name of Camellia Institute of Engineering & Technology, Camellia Institute of Polytechnic and Camellia Public School. The assessee did not file income tax return for AY 2017-18. During the demonetization period announced during the FY 2016-17 cash of Rs.11,15,000/- was deposited in the bank account. Based on this information and the fact that assessee did not file the income tax return, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by validly issuing and serving notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In compliance, assessee filed the return declaring loss of Rs.24,42,868/-. Thereafter, based on the documents submitted by the assessee as well as material gathered by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, ld. AO concluded the assessment proceedings and assessed the total income at Rs.1,29,26,854/- after making following additions amounting to Rs.1,53,69,722/- Sl. No. Particulars Addition made Total addition 1. Cash deposits during Rs.16,04,250/- Rs.16,04,250/- demonetization period (u/s. 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961) 2. Administrative Expenses Rs. 89,183/- Rs. 89,183/- 3. Operating Expenses Rs.30,11,571/- Rs.20,11,571/- Page 3 of 11 CO No. 03/Kol/2024 Kalyan Educational Society, AY : 2017-18 4. Other sources of income Rs. 4,24,322/- Rs. 4,24,322/- 5. Caution Deposit and Fees Refundable u/s. 68: (i) Caution Deposit Rs.73,19,939/- Rs.1,02,40,396/- (ii) Fees Refundable Rs.29,20,457/- worth Total Additions Rs.1,53,69,722/-

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. Now, revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal against the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and assessee has raised Cross Objection against the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).

Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the addition confirmed and supported the order of the AO for the additions deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submission and the paper book containing various documents relating to audited financial statement, ledger account of various expenses as well as caution money and date wise detail of cash collected from students towards tuition fees, submitted that the source of cash deposit of Rs.16,04,250/- is duly supported by the details of cash receipts from various students placed at pages 76 to 149 and since the cash receipts were voluminous in nature, only the details were filed before Ld. AO but now the sample copy of such cash deposit are being filed . As regards the addition for interest income of Rs.4,24,322/- he submitted that the same has already been disclosed in the return of income and, therefore, the alleged addition tantamount to double addition.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a registered society u/s. 12AA of the Act and is running educational institution in the field of engineering and technology and polytechnic and also runs a public school. Admittedly, the assessee did not file the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act but subsequently has filed the return in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Books of account are regularly maintained and the financial statements are duly audited and the audit report is dated 29.07. 2017. Ld. AO has made additions relating to unexplained cash deposit, unaccounted interest income, disallowance of expenses and addition for caution deposit and refundable fee.

As regards the disallowance of expenses on ad hoc basis under the head administrative and operative expenses of Rs.89,183/- and Rs.30,11,571/- respectively, we find that the reopening case was carried out for examining the unexplained cash deposit. Complete details along with the books of account were furnished. Ld. AO has accepted the book results since books of account have not been rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act. No specific discrepancy has been observed by the Ld. AO prior to making alleged ad hoc disallowance and, therefore, it can be safely inferred that Ld. AO had no evidence/ adverse observation prior to making ad hoc disallowance of 25%. This Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shyam Sundar Agarwal, dated 27.05.2016 adjudicating the similar disallowance of ad hoc disallowance has held as under: “No enquiry whatsoever was made by the Assessing Officer with the concerned truck owners to find out the genuineness of the hire charges claimed to be paid by the assessee. Even no specific or material defects were pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the vouchers maintained by the assessee in support of his claim for truck hire charges except that the said vouchers were self-made vouchers and the truck hire charges were paid by the assessee in cash. Keeping in view the nature of the business of the assessee, there was nothing unusual in making the payment of truck hire charges in cash through self-made vouchers so as to doubt the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on truck hire charges. Moreover, as rightly held by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the ad hoc disallowance of Rs.30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was without any basis. In the case of Ranjit Singh Prem Singh Ahuja -vs.- DCIT (ITA No. 961/PN/2014 dated 24.06.2015), a similar issue had come up for consideration before the Pune Bench of this Page 6 of 11 CO No. 03/Kol/2024 Kalyan Educational Society, AY : 2017-18 Tribunal and the disallowance of 2% of transport expenses made by the Assessing Officer by raising trivial objection was held to be not sustainable by the Tribunal on the ground that no material discrepancy whatsoever had been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the books of account and other record maintained by the assessee in support of its claim for transport expenses. Keeping in view the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ranjit Singh Prem Singh Ahuja (supra) and having regard to all the facts of the case, we are of the view that the ad hoc disallowance of Rs.30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer out of truck hire charges was not sustainable and the ld. CIT(Appeals) is fully justified in deleting the same. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.”

Similar view was also taken by the coordinate Bench Mumbai in the case of TUV Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 175 and by the Coordinate Bench Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Amit Verma (2012) 34 CCH 0154. Respectfully following the decisions referred above and also taking into consideration the fact that Ld. AO had made the alleged disallowance without rejecting the book result and without making any reference to any discrepancy in the claim of alleged expenses, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned disallowance of administrative and operating expenses. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the alleged ad hoc disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.31,00,754/-.

Next, we take up the addition on account of caution money deposit u/s. 68 of the Act. We note that the assessee along with educational institution also runs hostel for boarding and lodging of the students. In the normal course of carrying out activities for educational institution caution money is taken from the students at the time of admission and refunded back when they leave the school/college. This is a routine practice by all the educational institutions. Assessee has maintained complete details of the caution money deposits along with the supporting bills which are placed at Page 7 of 11 CO No. 03/Kol/2024 Kalyan Educational Society, AY : 2017-18 paper book page 150 to 180. Ld. AO has simply made the addition for closing balance of caution deposit ignoring the fact that only Rs.26,88,000/- was received during the year. The summary of transactions of caution money deposits placed in the written submission at page 11 reads as under: Particulars Opening Caution Caution Closing Balance Deposit Deposit balance received refunded back during the during the year year Caution 36,79,714 19,98,000 93,500 55,81,214 Deposit Hostel Caution 10,58,725 6,90,000 10,000 17,38,725 Deposit College Total 47,35,439 26,88,000 1,03,500 73,19,939

From going through the above details as well as the caution deposit, sample copies of caution deposit receipt, we find that the same are forming part of the regular books of account and the details of deposit under this head from the students are duly recorded with the details of the students as well as the refund made on case to case basis. Under these given facts, we find that the Ld. AO grossly erred in invoking section 68 of the Act because the nature and source of deposit is duly explained. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.73,19,939/- made for unexplained caution deposit.

The last issue raised in Revenue’s appeal is in respect of addition for fees refundable of Rs.29,20,457/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, to our discussion for caution deposit (supra), we find that the refundable fee is also explained on the strength of the details placed before us and the same indicates that those students who are interested to take the admission, deposits the tuition fees and other Page 8 of 11 CO No. 03/Kol/2024 Kalyan Educational Society, AY : 2017-18 incidental fees but later on for their own reasons if they do not join the college then such type of amount received from the students remains with the assessee society and is shown under the head refundable fee as the current liability. Details of each of the entries appearing in the refundable fee account are available. As and when the student claims them back, they are returned. Therefore, the alleged liability is not a bogus liability but an ascertained liability. It even cannot partake the character of cessation of liability because it is an active/live liability and not extinct and the same is payable to the student when they claim back. Therefore, neither the addition is called for u/s. 68 of the Act nor u/s. 41(1) of the Act. We thus, fail to find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.29,24,457/-. Therefore, the ground raised

Ground no. 2 raised in the Cross Objection is regarding addition for interest income of Rs.4,24,322/-. Our attention was drawn to the income tax return filed by the assessee where under the head other receipts cum misc. receipts shows a sum of Rs.4,24,322/- which is comprising of two figures i.e. Rs.3,94,423/- and Rs.29,899/- and already stands disclosed in ITR. In the audited P&L Account and more specifically under Schedule 10 of other receipts, a sum of Rs.33,71,424/- is shown as miscellaneous receipt and the same comprises of the following :- Misc. Receipts Amount in (Rs.) Examination fee 18,44,000.00 Project Works 48,250.00 Received from Students 10,37,147.00 Exam Fees 11,620.00 Interest on FD 3,94,423.00 Interest WBSEDCL 29,899.00 Xerox Library 6,085.00