9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee against the order dated 11.03.2016 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) New Delhi, for assessment year 2002-03. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of corpus donation of Rs. 2, 94,00,000/- received by the appellant from the donor companies / person by holding the same to be in the nature of income without invoking any provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The same is liable to fully deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not taking cognizance of the confirmations letters / statement recorded by the Assessing Officer in response to summon u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 who produced their identification papers, statement of accounts and other documents for confirming corpus donation having been given to the appellant Trust. The corpus donation of Rs.2,94,00,000/- is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the directions of the ITAT vide their order dated 10th July, 2009. 3. None appeared for the assessee. The assessee remained absent continuously right from filing of the appeal till this date. The notices sent by the Registry returned with endorsement un-claimed . Therefore, we are constrained to decide the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment order came to be passed making addition of corpus donation of Rs.2,94,00,000/- received by the assessee and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.2,94,00,000/-. In the appeal the Ld.CIT(A), New Delhi upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. The said order of the Ld.CIT(A) was called in question before this Tribunal in ITA No. 1875/Del/2018 and this Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2019, remanded the matter to the file of AO to decide afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings since there was no new material brought on record by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the material produced by the appellant and brought on record. The Assessing Officer submitted a remand report dated 11.2.2016 wherein it was submitted as under: It is seen that in compliance to the direction given by the Hon ble ITAT, the assessing officer gave opportunity to the appellant to be heard. In compliance, Sh. P. S. Kanodia attended the proceedings and filed documentary evidences. However, after going through the submissions of the assessee along with details, documents and information placed on records, it was seen that the assessee had not produced any fresh material evidence other than those already submitted and produced during original assessment proceedings and before the appellant authorities. Therefore, vide assessment order dated 31.12.2010, the addition of Rs.2,94,00,000/ - was again made to the total income of the assessee. 4.3 The reason for the same as summed up from the original Assessment order and the Appellate order dated 31.03.2008 are as under: 1. Simply because the amounts were received by cheque and the parties are assessed to cheques does not establish the genuineness of the donations claimed to have been received from them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M.N. Choudhary, director of Information Technologies India Ltd. in his statement had no knowledge about filing of Income-tax return of the company after asstt. year. 1995-96. He stated that he had joined the company w.e.f. 16.6.03 and the earlier aspect was not known to him. He further stated that all the records of the company were lying in the registered office at Lucknow. He also stated that he was not aware of the taxation matters and regarding filing of the returns of income for which he will have to consult the auditors. He also could not produce any evidence to support that he was the director or principal officer of the company. The records also show that no books of account or other identification papers were produced before the AO. Similar is the position in respect of Sh. Sanjay Gupta, who appeared before the AO as a director of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. and Information Technologies India Ltd. Sh. Dinesh Gupta who appeared on behalf of M/s Gordon Herbert (India) Ltd stated himself to be an accountant in School of Management and Science at 12/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad. He also did not have any Power of Attorney or other evidence authorising him to appear before the AO o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
