ORISSA EDUCATION TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has be None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has be None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has been filed by the assessee on the assessee on 5.10.2020. The appeal has been posted for hear The appeal has been posted for hearing on multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022, multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022, multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022,

The facts in the present appeal shows that the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.2,80,93,836/- made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) The assessee has also challenged the addition of Rs.2,90,00,000/- representing the difference in the value of the building. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that in para 4.2 in respect of addition of Rs.77,86,617/-, the ld CIT(A) has called for remand report and has considered the same along with the rejoinder filed by the assessee. It is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the appellant had been unable to prove anything to the contrary to that what could be produced before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment and remand proceedings.

Coming to the disallowance of Rs.2,80,93,836/-, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) in para 5.2 of his order has categorically given a finding that the appellant could not controvert the facts during the remand proceedings and also before the ld CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings in respect of the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings.

Coming to the issue of addition representing Rs.2,90,00,000/-, a perusal of para 6.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the appellant was unable to file the report showing the valuation in respect of the construction of the building. It is also noticed that the ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the appellant could not produce any evidence and explanation to refute and negate the findings of the Assessing Officer in respect of the said addition. Thus, clearly, the ld CIT (A) has gone into the facts of each of the addition and it is only on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to produce any evidence to negate the findings of the Assessing Officer that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.

Before the Tribunal also, admittedly, the assessee has not filed any documents or evidence which could assist the Tribunal to draw a conclusion contrary to that drawn by the ld CIT(A). This being so, we are of the view that the order of the ld CIT(A) do not call for any interference and consequently, same stands upheld.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.