IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1094 (A.Y. 2012-13) & 1095 (A.Y. 2015-16)/JPR/2024 Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidya Mandir, YAG Ke Balaji, Tonk – 304 001 PAN No. AAAAB7653D ...... Appellant vs.

Circle (Exem.), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 31.07.2024 &07.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA No. 1094/JPR/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) as under:

1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in denying the

assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act by holding that

exemption u/s. 10(23C) is not permissible if receipts are more than Rs.1 crore

ignoring that receipt is to be considered for each of the educational institution run by the assessee and not the aggregate receipt of all the institution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.95,41,100/- without distinguishing the case laws relied by the assessee in support of its contention.

2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in denying assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act on the ground that as on the date of grant of registration u/s. 12AA(1)(b) of the Act the assessment was not pending ignoring that assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which is in continuation of the assessment proceedings and thus pendency before Ld. CIT(A) is to be considered as pendency before AO since power of Ld. CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of AO and thus first proviso to section

12A(2)of the Act is applicable on assessee as held in various case laws.

3 The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal.

4 Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

In ITA No. 1095/JP/2024 (2015-16), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and the consequent order passed u/s. 147 of the Act ignoring that second proviso to section 12A(2) specifically provides that no action u/s. 147 shall be taken by the AO in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non- registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year and the AO has not made any addition on the basis of information for which he initiated the proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act.

2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in denying the assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act by holding that exemption u/s. 10(23C) is not permissible if receipts are more than Rs.1 crore ignoring that receipt is to be considered for each of the educational institution run by the assessee and not the aggregate receipt of all the institution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,66,06,036/- without distinguishing the case laws relied by the assessee in support of its contention.

3 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in denying assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act on the ground that assessee has not filed return of income u/s. 139(4A) and has also not uploaded the audit report in prescribed time ignoring that the same is a procedural requirement and once the return and audit report is filed during course of reassessment proceedings the condition is substantially complied with and without distinguishing the various cases relied by the assessee on this issue.

The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO is disallowing the claim of cap