HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court and other coordinate benches, held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the ratio laid down in various High Court and Supreme Court judgments cited by the Revenue were distinguishable from the present case.

SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal found that the quantum appeal against the assessment order was still pending and its outcome, particularly on the jurisdictional issue, had a direct bearing on the penalty proceedings.

SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days, citing the assessee's sufficient cause, including a non-cooperative consultant, a recent family bereavement, and the disproportionate nature of the addition compared to the returned income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing.

SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty matter was also restored back to the AO to be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully established the source of investment for the agricultural land, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 54,27,653. It also found the trading addition of Rs. 2,31,451 unsustainable as it was made on an estimate basis without identifying specific defects in the assessee's regularly maintained books of account, and thus deleted this addition as well.

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based on information regarding unaccounted cash loans and interest. The assessee challenged this, arguing that Section 153C should have been invoked as the seized documents belonged to a third party. The CIT(A) quashed the proceedings, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, which held that Section 153C has an overriding effect over Section 148 in such cases.

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur Vs. Gopal Prasad Gupta 301, Anukampa Mansion- 1, M.I. Road, Jaipur 302001 Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rajnikant Bhatra, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT Date of Hearing 18.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2026 ORDER Per Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member)

The assessee challenged the issuance of notice u/s 148 and the assessment order, arguing that proceedings under Section 153C should have been initiated as the seized documents were from a third party. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, quashing the proceedings based on the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan's order in DB Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019.

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case, which followed the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Since there was no change in facts for the assessment years in question, the Tribunal respectfully followed the ITAT's decision and allowed the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.