9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred by the Revenue under section 253 of the Act. 3. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Kazi for the appellant and Mr. Sharma for the revenue. 4. Needless to state at the outset that this being an appeal under section 260-A of the Act, the appellant has to demonstrate that the matter involves some substantial question of law. Bearing in mind this limitation, we shall now advert to the arguments. 5. The appellant having failed to file the returns, was served with a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, it filed a return disclosing 7145 individual donors from whom it had received cash donation in aggregate to the tune of Rs. 2,89,20,955/-. After conducting hearing, the assessment officer by the order dated 27-03-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had failed to examine this aspect which error was corrected by the first appellate authority. According to him, following substantial questions of law would arise : (1) Whether the notice u/sec. 143(2) of the I.T.A. 1961 dt. 3.2.2014 issued by the A.O. is bad in law? (2) Whether the notice u/sect. 143(2) issued by the A.O. is in violation of the instruction no. 10 and 13 of 2013 issued by the CBDT ? (3) Whether the enquiries conducted by the A.O. before 3.3.2014 (date on which notice was issued under sec. 143(2) of the I.T.A. is bad in law as the same was conducted without any jurisdiction / Authority ? (4) Whether the A.O. was justified in holding that, the Assessee / appellant had received anonymous donation as define under u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had discharged his burden by leading evidence then, in such circumstances, whether the finding recorded by the Ld. Tribunal regarding rebuttal is perverse? (12) Whether the ITAT could go beyond the remand report submitted by the A.O.? (13) Whether the tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment order only on the basis of letter issued to 70 donors out of 7145 donors i.e. 98% ? 9. Per contra, Mr. Sharma for the revenue submitted that the instructions no. 10 and 13 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Besides, these are merely administrative instructions and will not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the assessment officer particularly when the appellant had failed to file any return at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiate that the donations received by it are not anonymous donations. 14. Once having borne in mind this aspect, it is quite apparent that at no point of time, the appellant was able to discharge this onus. Apart from the fact that it had even failed to file the returns, it had made some attempt to furnish some record and revenue had volunteered to verify genuineness by a sample check. Barring few instances, identity of the donors could not be confirmed in view of section 133(6). Pertinently, after the appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority a new set of donors' list was furnished stating that the first list was submitted erroneously and still the enquiry did not result in identification of the donors. 15. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
