M/s Vidya Niketan Samiti , Bhopal V. The DCIT ,Central-1, Bhopal

CO 32/Ind/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (revenue) appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which had deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained investments and expenditures, and granted exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee, M/s. Vidya Niketan Samiti, Bhopal. The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and cross-objections for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 due to the similarity of issues with previously decided cases for 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal upheld the decisions made in the earlier years, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals and acceptance of the assessee's cross-objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130929 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2021
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), National Newsprints Vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 132; 11; 143(3); 12A

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 7 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT(Central)-1 Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. M/s. Vidya Niketan Samiti, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AAAAV 1381 L CO No.30& 32/Ind/2021 (Arising out of IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Vidya Niketan Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. DCIT(Central)-1 Bhopal (Cross-objector / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AAAAV 1381 L Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpandey, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 27.03.2015 passed by Ld. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”], the revenue has filed the captioned Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 2 of 7 appeals and the assessee has filed captioned cross-objections to the extent concerning the assessment-year [“AY”] 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. These appeals and cross-objections arise out of common appeal- order/assessment-order and some of the issues are identical; therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common-order for the sake of brevity. 3. The grounds raised by parties are as under: IT(SS)A No. 187/Ind/2020 – Revenue’s appeal for AY 2010-11: “(1) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,11,23,759/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment. (2) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure. (3) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee.” IT(SS)A No. 188/Ind/2020 – Revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12: “(1) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,14,020/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment. (2) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure. (3) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee.” C.O. No. 30/Ind/2021 – Assessee’s Cross-Objection for AY 2010-11: C.O. No. 32/Ind/2021 – Assessee’s Cross-Objection for AY 2011-12: In both of these Cross-objections, the assessee initially raised identical ground as under: “(1) The Assessing Officer has not allowed the deduction under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961” Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 3 of 7 Additional grounds: Subsequently, the assessee filed following additional identical grounds with varying figures for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, vide application dated 31.10.2022. The additional grounds for AY 2010-11 are as under: (2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 15,62,436/- being the difference in the valuation determined by the Ld. DVO and disclosed by the assessee. (3) Since the books of account were not rejected by the Ld. AO, the reference made by the Ld. AO is bad in law and the additions made on account of the difference of valuation are also bad in law. (4) Since no incriminating material was found, no addition could be made for the difference between the valuation made by the DVO and shown by the assessee. (5) The addition maintained by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted.” The additional grounds for AY 2011-12 are as under: (2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 9,43,047/- being the difference in the valuation determined by the Ld. DVO and disclosed by the assessee. (3) Since the books of account were not rejected by the Ld. AO, the reference made by the Ld. AO is bad in law and the additions made on account of the difference of valuation are also bad in law. (4) Since no incriminating material was found, no addition could be made for the difference between the valuation made by the DVO and shown by the assessee. (5) The addition maintained by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 4. At the start of hearing, the Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the aforesaid additional grounds taken in Cross-Objections are legal in nature and the related facts are already on record but, however, the assesee could not raise them originally due to mistake; hence they may be allowed in view of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and National Newsprints Vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP). We confronted the Ld. DR who fairly agreed to the submissions of Ld. AR and Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 4 of 7 did not show any objection. Therefore, the additional grounds are admitted and shall be taken up for adjudication. 5. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 6. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee is a society engaged in imparting education and registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A search u/s 132 was conducted upon the assessee on 20.03.2016, pursuant to which the assessments for AY 2007-08 to 2012-13 were made u/s 153A/143(3) and for AY 2013-14 was made u/s 143(3) vide a consolidated assessment-order dated 27.03.2015 wherein certain additions/disallowances were made. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal and succeeded. Now, aggrieved by the order of first-appellate authority, the revenue/assessee have filed these appeals/cross-objections assailing the orders of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. 7. Ld. Representatives of both sides fairly agree that the Revenue’s appeals and Assessee’s Cross-objections of immediately preceding assessment-years 2008-09 and 2009-10 emanating from the very same order appealed against in present-appeals, have already been decided by ITAT, Indore in IT(SS)A No. 185 & 186/Ind/2020 order dated 09.02.2023 (a copy of the order is filed before us) but, however, the present appeals/cross-objections of AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 remained pending. Ld. ARs further agree that the grounds raised in present appeals/cross- objections are exactly same as in the already decided appeals of AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Hence the decision already taken by the Co-ordinate Bench will apply mutadis mutandis. 8. We have perused the case records of present-appeals and cross- objections as also the aforesaid order of Co-ordinate Bench. After perusal, we agree to the submission of both sides and find that various grounds raised in present-appeals / cross-objections are squarely covered by the Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 5 of 7 grounds already decided by Co-ordinate Bench; accordingly we too decide in conformity of the same as under: Grounds in present Appeals / Cross-Objections Issue involved Reference of Grounds of earlier appeals already decided by Co-ordinate Bench (Para No. of order) Our decision Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s ITAs for both years and Ground No. 2 to 5 of Assessee’ C.O. for both years Unexplained investment of Rs. 1,11,23,759/- in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 67,14,020/- in AY 2011-12 deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and Rs. 15,62,436/- in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 9,43,047/- in AY 2011-12 maintained by Ld. CIT(A) Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s Appeal and Ground No. 2 to 5 of Assessee’s Cross-Objection of AY 2008-09 (Para No. 18) Revenue’s Ground No. 1 is dismissed and Assessee’s Ground No. 2 to 5 are allowed. Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s IT(SS)A for both years Unexplained expenditure of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,80,00,000/- in AY 2011-12 Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s Appeal of AY 2009-10 (Para No. 42) Revenue’s Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s IT(SS)A for both years and Ground No. 1 of Assessee’ C.O. for both years Exemption u/s 11 Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s Appeal and Ground No. 1 of Assessee’s Cross- Objection of AY 2008-09 (Para No. 24) Revenue’s Ground No. 2 is dismissed and Assessee’s Ground No. 1 is allowed. Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 7 9. Resultantly, the revenue’s appeals for both years are dismissed and the assessee’s cross-objections for both years are allowed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on....../....../2023. Order pronounced in the open court on ....../....../2023. (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : .2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Vidya Niketan Samiti IT(SS)A No.187 & 188/Ind/2020 and Co No.30& 32/Ind/2021 Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 7 of 7 1. Date of taking dictation 5.1.23 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 5.1.23 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5.1.23 4. Date on which the approved draft is placed before other Member 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. Date of dispatch of the Order