9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Act, 2002 assuming that such activity was being done by a person, it is rather doubtful to bring it under the definition of money laundering . Apart from that, the CIT(E) in paragraph 6.1 of the order dated 17th March, 2016 mentioned that the Treasurer and Secretary of the organisation were permitted to be cross-examined but the assessee trust did not avail the opportunity but merely filed their declaration on 13th January, 2016. The correctness of this finding was considered by the Tribunal and on going through the order-sheet maintained by the CIT(E) it was found that such finding was factually incorrect. As documents which were the basis for concluding that the registration granted in favour of the assessee should be cancelled were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(E) having committed a fundamental error cannot be granted for one more opportunity. Therefore, the tribunal was right in rejecting the prayer for remanding the proceedings and we are also of the view that the question of granting a further opportunity to the CIT(E) on the facts of the case on hand does not arise. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted under Section 133A of the Act on School of Human Genetics Population Health, Kolkata during January, 2015. It was stated that during the survey, statement of the treasurer of the said school was recorded and in that statement they had admitted that they have been providing entries to different individuals and organisations. The entries were provided in two ways: (i) accepting donations and returning the same through web of financial transactions after retaining the commission; and, (ii) accepting money by cash or through web of financial transactions and making donations after retaining the commission. The show cause notice further stated that the assessee had received donation amounting to ₹ 18,00,000/- in the assessment year 2013-14 from the said organisation and therefore, it was evident that by accepting donation and then returning the money the assessee had indulged in money laundering which is illegal, not genuine or not in accordance with the objects of the assessee trust. With this allegation, the assessee was requested to explain why the registration granted under Section 12A should not be cancelled by invoking Section 12AA(3) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and accepted that they had been indulging in certain activities by which certain entries were made in the books of accounts and they were returning the donations so received from third parties by way of cash. The CIT(E) would place reliance on the order passed in proceedings before the Settlement Commission to come to the conclusion that the said organisation had accepted the allegations against them and offered the entire income to tax and also agreed before the Commission that they will, in future, continue various research and welfare activities and they will not indulge in any such activity for which proceedings have been initiated against them. It could be seen that in the statements recorded from the Treasurer and Secretary of the said organisation before the Settlement Commission there is no whisper about the assessee trust and that the assessee trust either received donation and returned the same in cash or the assessee trust paid cash and received donation from the said organisation. In paragraph 5.2 the CIT(E) mentions the list of donations which were paid by the said organisation during the financial year 2012-13 to 2014-15 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d date the declaration was filed. Therefore, the finding rendered by the CIT(E) in paragraph 6.1 is false. The CIT(E) in its order has relied upon two letters alleged to have been written by the Secretary of the said organisation and would state that there is certain imputation against the assessee. The tribunal found that copies of those two letters were not furnished to the assessee and the Secretary of the organisation was not made available for cross-examination. When the revenue was confronted with these facts, the learned department-representative submitted before the Tribunal that the case should be remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. This aspect was also taken note of by the Tribunal and after noting the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-II reported in (1980)125 ITR 713(SC) and the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3(SC) rejected such a prayer made on behalf of the revenue. That apart, the tribunal upon re-examination of the facts found that there is nothing incrimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before the tribunal. This submission was rejected by the Hon ble Supreme Court as an opportunity before the appellate tribunal cannot be a substitute to that of an opportunity before the original adjudicating authority. The learned senior standing counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. M. Pirai Choody reported in(2011) 334 ITR 262(SC). In the said case the order of assessment was set aside on the ground that no opportunity to cross-examine was granted as sought by the assessee. Considering the facts of the case, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should have directed the assessing officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the concerned witness. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts as the case of the assessee before us is that the documents which were the basis for concluding that the registration granted in favour of the assessee should be cancelled were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(E) having committed a fundamental error cannot be granted for one more opportunity. Therefore, the tribunal was right in rejecting the prayer for remanding the proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
