NEW SOCIO ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ,OLD VILLAGE JASOLA OKHLA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) DELHI, NEW DELHI

PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee preferred the captioned appeals, challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Exemption), Delhi(In short “CIT(E)”) pertaining to assessment order for 2025-26. Assessee by Sh. Mohd. Talib Saifi, Advocate
Department by Sh. Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Date of hearing
25.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
25.06.2025

The appellant submits that they were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner of Income
Tax
(Exemption).
Despite requests for a personal hearing and time to submit additional documents and clarifications, the appellant was not granted sufficient time or a fair opportunity to address the concerns raised by the department.

The appellant respectfully submits that this denial of a reasonable opportunity to present the case is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and as such, the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) should be set aside.

In Para 4.1 of the rejection order, the appellant has submitted a copy of the supplementary deed.
Additionally, the appellant has submitted the third supplementary trust deed, on which all the information is correct. During the hearing period, the Commissioner did not request the submission of the original deed. The appellant respectfully requests that the Hon'ble Tribunal kindly consider the supplementary deed and allow the 3

opportunity for submission of the original trust deed at the earliest convenience, as it is a crucial document for the appeal process. However, we possess all the relevant deeds, including the original deed, which are available for submission to the authority at any stage during the proceedings.

In Para 4.2 of the rejection order, the appellant respectfully submits that all relevant donor details, including Name, PAN, and Address, have been provided in the prescribed format as requested by the department.
However, for donations received through crowdfunding platforms, the appellant faced significant practical difficulties in obtaining the complete details of donors.
This is due to the nature of crowdfunding, where donations are often made in small or nominal amounts by multiple individuals, and it is not feasible or practicable to request detailed information from each donor.

The appellant further submits that the donations received via crowdfunding were genuine and transparent, and the omission of detailed donor information in such cases was due to the limitations of the crowdfunding platform. The appellant respectfully requests that the Hon'ble Tribunal consider this explanation, and the donor details already provided and allow an opportunity to provide any additional information if deemed necessary.

In Para No 4.3 of the rejection order, the appellant respectfully submits that the lack of detailed beneficiary information was due to practical challenges associated with the nature of the charitable activities.

Further, the appellant submits that it was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present and explain the facts related to the charitabic activities before the learned
Commissioner. Despite requests for a personal hearing, the appellant was not given adequate time or an opportunity to present the relevant facts and justifications regarding the nature of the activities and the expenses incurred. However, we have also submitted the activity report, which contains all relevant details, supported by photographic evidence as proof.

The appellant respectfully requests that the Hon'ble
Tribunal consider the explanation regarding the challenges in obtaining beneficiary details and the legitimate nature of the charitable activities undertaken.
The appellant also requests that an opportunity to fully explain and present the facts be granted, in the interest of justice.

In Para No 4.4 of the rejection order, the appellant respectfully submits that these donations were received through a legitimate crowdfunding platform. Donations through crowdfunding often involve numerous small or nominal contributions from individuals, and it is not uncommon for multiple donations to be made by the same donor on different occasions or in different small amounts.

Given the nature of crowdfunding, where donors typically contribute smaller amounts for specific causes, it is neither feasible nor practical to obtain comprehensive details for every donor. The donations received were genuine, and the appellant has made reasonable efforts to comply with all necessary legal and procedural requirements.

The appellant humbly requests that the Hon'ble Tribunal consider the context of crowdfunding and allow the donations received in this manner, which were made transparently for charitable purposes.

In Para No 4.5 and 4.6 of the rejection order, the appellant respectfully submits that the failure to mention the invoice numbers and GSTIN on the submitted bills was not a deliberate omission, but rather a clerical error. Ration
(Grocery Items) were procured from a local vendor. The appellant has made efforts to procure the corrected documents, and any discrepancies were unintentional.

However, authority can verify the genuineness of vendor by physical verification.

In Para No 4.5 of the rejection order, the appellant respectfully submits that the apparent discrepancy arises due to a difference in the presentation of the financials and beneficiary details. The expenses have been recorded in a manner that does not fully reflect all transactions in a consolidated format, leading to this perceived difference.

Furthermore, some of the expenses for the ration distribution programme were incurred in cash, and the appellant acknowledges that a complete record of these cash transactions could not be maintained due to the nature of the expenditure and operational challenges at the time. Despite this, the appellant assures that these expenses were genuinely incurred for charitable purposes.

The appellant request the Hon’ble Tribunal to consider the factual circumstances and allow an opportunity to reconcile the financial records, as the expenses claimed were legitimate and were incurred in the furtherance of charitable activities.