आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING)

श्री धिजय पाल राि, उपाध्यक्ष, एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24)

NRI ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vs. Income Tax Officer – Exemption

60-3-1/44 YK Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O.

Vijayawada (Urban)

Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [PAN:AAATN4207C]

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 09.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A) – 2, Mumbai vide DIN &Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073008634(1) dated 07.02.2025 for the A.Y.2023-24 arising out of intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.11.2024.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act and has also registered under section 12A and 80G of the Act. During the impugned assessment year, the managing committee members had differences in administrating the Society and therefore approached the legal forums. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh appointed an Arbitrator till such time the case was settled. The Arbitrator, in-turn, appointed an administrator with necessary permissions to administrator the functions of the Society. The Centralized Processing Centre (hereinafter in short “CPC”) while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act on 18.11.2024 disallowed a sum of Rs.90,33,530/- under section 40A(3) of the Act based on the disallowance cited in Form 3CD by the tax auditor. The CPC before disallowance, provided an opportunity to the assessee for submitting his objections. Assessee submitted its objections, however, it was not considered by the CPC while confirming the addition under section 40A(3) of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee represented that the assessee was prevented by a genuine difficulty in operating the bank account of the assessee and due to these exceptional unavoidable circumstances cash payments have been made for a short period until the bank account was unfrozen by the order of the Hon’ble Court. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submissions and by relying onthe disallowances pointed out by the Statutory Auditor in the Tax Audit Report confirmed the addition made by the CPC.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The Ld. CIT(A), under the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in upholding the action of the ADIT, CPC Bangalore, in confirming the adjustments, pertaining to section 40A(3), made to the returned income, under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, dated 18.11.2024.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the submissions and responses provided by the assessee, in reply to the proposed adjustments, as indicated in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, were not considered by the Assessing Officer and were ignored, therefore, such adjustments/addition cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

3. The Ld. Addl./JCIT viewed the case from a narrow perspective, viewing from the angle that the assessee's case falls under section 143(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, and the adjustment made is automatic and requires no intervention.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the assessee societ