2026 (4) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an educational institution. For the Asst. Year 2015-16 the assessee made financial transactions of Rs. 28,30,18,670/- but did not file the Return of Income. Hence the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31-03-2021. The assessee filed a belated return on 30-09-2021 in ITR-7 claiming exemption u/s. 11 of Rs. 1,53,65,909/-. As the assessee neither registered u/s. 12A nor has been granted approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) by the Competent Authority for the Asst. Year 2015-16, therefore the income from other sources of Rs. 28,09,13,820/- is tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y audit report in Form No. 10BB was never validly filed nor condoned by the CBDT. The ratio of CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. relates to retrospectivity of amendments and does not dilute mandatory statutory conditions. The decision in DIT v. Spic Educational Foundation squarely supports the Revenue, holding that non-filing of prescribed audit report disentitles exemption. Similarly, Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust dealt with depreciation under section 11 and has no bearing on exemption under section 10(23C). Accordingly, the case laws relied upon by the appellant are either factually distinguishable, rendered in a different statutory regime, or do not support dilution of mandatory conditions prescribed under section 10(23C), and henc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BBB for alternate claim under section 10(23C)(iiab), failure to furnish sanction letter, utilisation certificate, or evidentiary proof of application of grant, the AO correctly added the amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- to the income of the appellant. The explanations offered are neither supported by facts nor by law. In view of the above detailed discussion and since the explanation offered by the appellant lacks substance and merit, this ground is dismissed." 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the re assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being receipt of grant for construction? 9) Whether, in facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the ground relating to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee by Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 13-02-2024 for the Asst. Years 2015-16 to 2017-18 which is placed at Page No. 27 to 29 of the Paper Book, which reads as follows: "Order for approval under section 10(23....