AHILYA BAHUDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), NANDED, NANDED

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 23.01.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable society duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellant trust was also registered under the provisions of section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appellant trust was incorporated for the purpose of imparting education. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 29.11.2015 declaring Rs.Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Nanded (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax as anonymous donation of Rs.35,28,560/- for failure of the assessee to establish the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the donors. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC. During the proceedings before the NFAC, the appellant society had filed the details of donors from whom, the appellant was stated to have received the donations. The NFAC had called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer on the evidence filed before him. During the course of remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued letters u/s 133(6) of the Act seeking the confirmation from 250 donors out of 550 donors claimed to be donors of the said amount. None of the donors have responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. When this information was confronted to the assessee trust, the assessee had failed to furnish any reply or submission. In the circumstances, the NFAC concluded that the donations were not genuine, accordingly, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of haring. However, the written submissions on behalf of the assessee were filed, wherein, the assessee took a plea that there was no justification to treat the donations of Rs.35,28,560/- as anonymous donations, as they had not donations but advance. The NFAC had failed to give a reasonable opportunity to rebut the remand report of the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relying on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called for, as the