AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Bench:
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17.
As the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order taking ITA No.9101/Del/2025 as a lead case.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 24 [“CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Act, is largely bad in law, invalid and unjustified.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions/disallowances amounting to Rs.62,26,88,774.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 41,67,89,163 which was made by the Ld.AO by applying notional percentage of 9.39% on gross receipt following last year’s order without appreciating the fact that FIITJEE has recognised the revenue on a scientific basis based on the number of years the course is extending and the hours spent each year as per its revenue recognition policy in accordance with AS-9.
3.1That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of Rs.27,45,56,502 being the amount added to the taxable income of FIITJEE on account of revenue recognition in AY 2014-15, which clearly amounts to double taxation of the same revenue.
4.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the expense amounting to Rs. 17,19,34,369 incurred and claimed on account of marketing and photocopy expenses without appreciating the legal position that the Income Tax Act does not recognize the concept of deferred revenue expenditure as supported by the binding judicial precedents on this issue, including of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
4.1The AO erred in passing the order without giving the deduction of Rs.10,91,70,047 being the amount added to the taxable income of the Appellant in AY 2014-15.
5.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 45,35,097 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
6.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of the depreciation claimed amounting to Rs. 2,77,30,200 on goodwill generated due to amalgamation of the appellant with its subsidiary company.
7.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 27,60,767 on the intangible assets of FIITJEE Edusoft Limited (now merged in the appellant).
8.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act.
9.The above grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to each other.
10.That the Appellant craves to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing coaching/training to students preparing for IIT and other engineering entrance examinations. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 29.11.2017 declaring the total income at Rs.’nil.’ The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. After considering the assessee’s submission, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.62,26,88,774/-, after making various additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who, vide order dated 24.10.2025, had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned grounds.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee had filed various documentary evidences and written submissions in support of its claim before the lower authorities, but, the same were not considered while adjudicating the issue. The Ld. AR prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim by cogent supporting documentary evidences.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed to the prayer of the assessee stating that the assessee was given several opportunities before the lower authorities which were not availed by the assessee.
On the above facts of the case, it is observed that various additions/disallowances were made by the Ld. AO and majority of which were also upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by sufficient documentary evidences. Though the Ld. AR contends that all the relevant documents were filed by the assessee, the same were not considered. In order to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it fit to remand all these issues back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on the basis of the documentary evidences proposed to be filed by the assessee, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any delay from its side. Needless to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Hence, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
ITAs No.9186, 9185 & 9184/Del/2025 (AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15)
Since the facts are identical, our finding given in ITA No.9101/Del2025 as above would apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals and these appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes.
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.