VIDYA VIKAS PRATISHTAN,SOLAPUR V. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

ITA 902/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, a trust engaged in educational activities, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23. The primary contention was the incorrect disallowance of receipts and salary payments, which the trust argued were related to its educational activities and not commercial in nature. The initial appeal was partly allowed by the CIT(A), but specific grounds regarding disallowances were dismissed without merit examination. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the communication of hearing notices, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785914 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH BAFNA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 10B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.902/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. PAN : AAATV8537F Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.902/PUN/2025 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without adjudicating the matter on merits and without dealing with the specific grounds and merits, in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order, being non-speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1,73,56,240/- on account of receipts from incidental objects, without appreciating that such receipts comprised fees and contributions directly related to educational activities of the trust, and not commercial in nature and hence, the addition made under section 69A of the Act is factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 57,80,922/-on account of salary paid to specified persons under section 69A of the Act, without appreciating that the payments were made in accordance with Technical Board recommendations, duly approved by the Trust, and were fully disclosed and justified in Form 10B which were neither excessive nor without service justification, and hence, the addition made under section 69A is factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and deserves to be deleted in full. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in summarily upholding the assessment of total income at Rs.12,51,04,112/- merely by observing that the Assessing Officer was “justified” without independently examining or dealing with specific grounds raised in the appeal memo and thus the impugned appellate order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, as it is based entirely on best judgment without adequate opportunity of hearing, and in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned authorities failed to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.902/PUN/2025 3 appreciate that the Trust is engaged exclusively in educational activities, and the disallowances made are inconsistent with past assessments and settled judicial principles applicable to charitable institutions. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust and has filed its return of income on 03.11.2022 declaring income of Rs.Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and income of Rs.10,19,66,950/- was determined. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. Vide order dated 29.03.2024 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act by determining income of Rs.12,51,04,112/-. The above assessed income includes disallowance of receipts from incidental objects of Rs.1,73,56,240/- and disallowance on account of large payment by way of salary to specified persons of Rs.57,80,922/-. The Assessing Officer also accepted the income computed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.10,19,66,950/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. While Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.902/PUN/2025 4 doing so, Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the record with regard to an order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B and to allow the claim of the assessee if the contention of the appellant is found to be correct. However, ground no.2 and 3 were dismissed without going into merits of the case. 6. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the notices of hearing were issued on email ID of one of the trustee who did not have the practice of checking his email regularly and the other email ID [e-mail] on which Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC forwarded the communication, does not belong to the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that due to the above reasons the assessee could not respond/file reply before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested to provide one more opportunity to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.902/PUN/2025 5 8. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee wherein copy of approval order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B is attached. In this regard, we also find that notices of hearing were sent on some wrong email ID which does not belong to the assessee and secondary email ID provided by the assessee belonged to one of the trustee who was not regularly checking his email ID which resulted in passing of impugned unfortunate ex-parte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce relevant documents/submission/evidences, if any, to substantiate the grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.902/PUN/2025 6 pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Rest of the grounds raised in the present appeal are not adjudicated & the appellant is at liberty to raise them before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who has been directed to decide the appeal afresh i.e. de novo. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29th October, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "