Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2016-17, which arose from proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The core issue was the treatment of alleged donations totaling Rs.11,12,26,500/- as unexplained.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Assessing Officer's favorable remand report, which confirmed that the donations came from concerned donors with instructions to form part of the societies' corpus. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal found that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party in this context.
Key Issues
Whether the donations received were correctly treated as unexplained by the Assessing Officer, or if the CIT(A)'s decision based on a remand report was correct.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 13.08.2024 passed in 10321/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that so far as the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action treating the alleged donation(s) of Rs.11,12,26,500/- as unexplained is concerned, the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion at page 50 makes it clear that he has gone by the Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report only that these donation(s) had come from the concerned corresponding donors with specific instructions that it shall form part of the societies corpus only. These Assessing Officer’s remand report has been duly extracted in the lower appellate discussion at page 45 in para 8.4 onwards. This being the clinching case, we hereby quote CIT Vs. D.M. Prunesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar)(HC) and Smt. B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) that the Revenue could hardly be treated even an aggrieved party in the Assessing Officer’s above favourable remand report. This instant appeal fails therefore.