2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 19392
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1) MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &
MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1509/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1510/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1511/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 1512/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 1514/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1515/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Ramrao Adik Education Society, D C I T , C e n t r a l C i r cle-7(1), Patil Building, Adarsh Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Opp Mig Colony, Worli, V s . M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.
Mumbai-400018.
PAN: AAATR3978A Appellant) : Respondent I.T.A. No. 2270/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)
I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2272/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2273/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2274/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2275/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2276/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)
Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench:
These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) all dated 30.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 to 2017-18. The issues contended by the assessee and the revenue are common across all these appeals and therefore these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. The common issues contended by the assessee through various grounds are tabulated below:
2. The common issues contended by the Revenue through various grounds are tabulated below –
3. The assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Act and incorporated with the main object of promoting education. The assessee is part of D Y Patil group of charitable institutions. The assessee is running Engineering, Architecture and other courses at Navi Mumbai. There was a search operation under section 132 on the group entities i.e. D Y Patil University (Navi Mumbai), its trustees, certain employees from 27.07.2016 to 29.07.2016. In the course of search statement under section 132(4) was recorded from the following persons:
(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)
(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)
(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)
(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)
(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)
(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee)
4. The essence of the recorded statements was that based on materials seized during the course of search, the deponents have stated that corpus donations taken by the assessee-trust group entities from donors where in lieu of admissions given to various students in the educational institutions run by the group and that the assessee-trust group entities were in receipt of capitation fees. It is relevant to mention here that the statements were retracted by the deponents under subsequent affidavits sworn on 10.08.2016 and 17.12.2018. As part of the search the residential premises of Shri Sunil Gaikwad was also searched on 27.07.2016 and certain incriminating materials were seized from the premises. In connection with the above proceeding a satisfaction note under 153C of the Act was received with relevant evidences and Punchnama by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee on 02.08.2018. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice under section 153C on 06.08.2018 on the assessee for AY 2011-12 to 2016-17. In response to notice under section 153C the assessee filed the return of income on 23.09.2018 declaring total income at Nil. The AO subsequently issued statutory notices which were duly served on the assessee calling for various details. The AO while completing the assessment made additions t