B N PUBLIC SCHOOL ,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of ld. ACIT (Exemp), New Delhi dated 28.12.2019 for AY 2017-18. 2. The grounds of assessee are as follows:-

2. That Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.37,85,000/- which is not sustainable on facts and in law.

3. That the Id. AO and learned CIT(A) both have erred in holding the cash deposit Of Rs.37,85,000/- made during the demonetization period appearing in the Bank accounts held with Bank of Baroda and Syndicate Bank, as unaccounted income of the assessee us 68 of the Act and treating same as unexplained cash credit.

4. That the Id. AO as well as Id. CIT(A) have erred in treating the cash deposits in bank account during the demonetization period, as taxable U/s 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the appellant, B N Public School, was a branch of the M/s Garhwal Sabha, a trust registered as a separate entity under the Income Tax Act, and that the cash receipts, which was actually the school fees received from students, in the bank accounts of B N Public School was included in the Financial statements of M/s Garhwal Sabha.

6. That the Id. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have erred in summarily rejecting and disregarding the concrete and conclusive evidences filed by the assessee with regard to the cash deposits made with Bank of Baroda and Syndicate bank, without making any inquiries to satisfy themselves about the explanation offered by the appellant. 7. That the Id. AO as well as Id. CIT(A) both have erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee was merely a branch of the trust Garhwal Sabha and that the , receipts of the assessee were incorporated in the books of the accounts of Garhwal Sabha. 8. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in rejecting the claim of assessee on the basis of theory that the assessee failed to bring anything on record that controvert the findings of the AO that cash deposited by the assessee during Demonetization period was reported in the books of. accounts of Grahwal Sabha. 9. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the allegations made by the Id. A.O. by totally ignoring the fact that the appellant has explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 37,85,000/- as fee received from students by having furnished copies of IT & Computation of Garhwal Sabha having PAN AAATG8387N along with a reconciliation of fees received in cash and in bank account with the income reported in the financial statements, though the details pertaining to cash deposit during demonetization period was inadvertently not filled in the respective of column of IT filed by Garhwal Sabha. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the Id. AO and learned CIT(A) both have erred in holding the cash deposit Of Rs.37,85,000/- made during the demonetization period appearing in the Bank accounts held with Bank of Baroda and Syndicate Bank, as unaccounted income of the assessee us 68 of the Act and treating same as unexplained cash credit. He further submitted that the Id. AO as well as Id. CIT(A) have erred in treating the cash deposits in bank account during the demonetization period, as taxable U/s 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the appellant, B N Public School, was a branch of the M/s Garhwal Sabha, a trust registered as a separate entity under the Income Tax Act, and that the cash receipts, which was actually the school fees received from students, in the bank accounts of B N Public School was included in the Financial statements of M/s Garhwal Sabha. 4. The ld. counsel drawing our attention towards paper book of assessee spread over 73 pages submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there was not even a shred of material/evidence with the Id. AO against the assessee to prove that the cash deposited by the assessee was not recorded in the books of the accounts of Garhwal Sabha and thus, have erred in summarily rejecting and disregarding the concrete and conclusive evidences filed by the assessee with regard to the cash deposits made with Bank of Baroda and Syndicate bank, without making any inquiries to satisfy themselves about the explanation offered by the appellant. He vehemently 2 Id. AO as well as Id. CIT(A) both have erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee was merely a branch of the trust Garhwal Sabha and that the , receipts of the assessee were incorporated in the books of the accounts of Garhwal Sabha and thus, the ld. first appellate authority has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in rejecting the claim of assessee on the basis of theory that the assessee failed to bring anything on record that controvert the findings of the AO that cash deposited by the assessee during Demonetization period was reported in the books of. accounts of Grahwal Sabha.

5. The ld. AR lastly, submitted that the authorities below have grossly erred in appreciating the documentary evidence of assessee and hence the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the allegations made by the Id. A.O. by totally ignoring the fact that the appellant has explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 37,85,000/- as fee received from students by having furnished copies of IT & Computation of Garhwal Sabha having PAN AAATG8387N along with a reconciliation of fees received in cash and in bank account with the income reported in the financial statements, though the details pertaining to cash deposit during demonetization period was inadvertently not filled in the respective of column of IT filed by Garhwal Sabha. Finally, it was submitted that the addition may kindly be deleted considering the fact of inclusion of impugned amount in the receipts of M/s Grahwal Sabha.