2019 (1) TMI 963 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Notice issued u/s 142(1) - Anonymous Donations - Charity Box (Gollak box) being the donations made by various followers and devotees visiting the Gurudwara - Exemption u/s 11 and exemption granted u/s 80G - charitable trust - Scope of 115BBC - Held that - Since no adverse order was passed against the petitioner and the earlier writ petition was dismissed, the second writ petition would not be maintainable. However, it is again clarified that in case any adverse order is passed by the Assessing Officer against the petitioner in pursuance to notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, it shall be open to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory remedies in accordance with law. - writ petition is not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of notice dated 5.12.2018 for addition of ? 62,95,300 in the Income and Expenditure Account of petitioner Charitable-cum-Religious Institution under 'Charity Box'.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a charitable trust, sought to quash a notice dated 5.12.2018 intending to add ? 62,95,300 on account of credit in the Income and Expenditure Account under the 'Charity Box'. The petitioner was registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and had approval under Section 80G. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on donations made by followers visiting the Gurudwara. The petitioner argued that being a charitable-cum-religious institution, the notice was illegal and against the Act. The petitioner cited judgments to support their claim. However, a previous writ petition on similar grounds was withdrawn, and no adverse order was passed. The court held that the second writ petition was not maintainable without any adverse order. The petitioner was advised to seek statutory remedies if any adverse order is passed.

The court noted that the previous writ petition was dismissed, and since no adverse order was issued, the second petition was not maintainable. The judgments cited by the petitioner were deemed irrelevant at this stage. The court clarified that if an adverse order is passed in the future, the petitioner could pursue statutory remedies. The court emphasized that the petitioner could seek recourse to statutory remedies in case of any adverse order by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was not granted permission to file a fresh writ petition as no adverse order had been passed against them. The court highlighted that the petitioner could take appropriate action in accordance with the law if an adverse order was issued in the future.