IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 379/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13)

ITA No. 378/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14)

ITA No. 377/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

ITA No.376/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16)

ITA No.375/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

ITA No.374/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18)

Mumbra Shikshan v/s. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Prasarak Mandal बनाम Thane / Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 16, Manpada Road, 1,6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road Shubhangi Darshan, Near Number 16Z, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Shivaji Statue, Dombivali Industrial Estate, Thane(West) –

(East) – 421 201, 400 604,Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABTM3427G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,AR Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Date of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of even date as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Pune-11 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.Since the issues involved are common, the facts being identical, barring figurative variations and also that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up appeal for AY 2012-13 as the ‘Lead case’. Decision rendered herein would apply mutatis mutandis to rest of other appeals.

2. ITA No.379/MUM/2024(AY 2012-13)

The grounds of the appeals are as under:

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not declaring the assessment being completed by the learned assessing officer as void-ab-initio.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the learned assessing officer for not to rely upon the statement of the trustee recorded during the survey as the same was retracted later.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to determine the income of the appellant as per Sections 11 and 12 considering the appellant is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income tax Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer on account of surplus in ‘income and expenditure account’.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer by disallowing inflated expenses.

6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore.

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied by the assessing officer under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act.

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not confirming the action of the assessing officer in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on the assessee trust on 24.10.2018. During the survey operation, it was found that the assessee trust did not have any registration u/s 12A/12AA of the Act. It was also found that the trustees were inflating the expenses of the trust by debiting bogus expenses in the Profit and loss Account as well as suppressing the receipts for their personal benefits. These factors made the assessee trust ineligible for the exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO re-opened the case u/s 147 of th