CIT vs. HUMAN CARE CHARITABLE TRUST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 08.03.2011 . Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. . + ITA No. 468/2011 . . The respondent is a charitable trust which is established by five NRIs. These NRIs are doctors by profession and are settled in United States. They have been remitting the contribution in US$ every year to this trust. The sole object of the trust is to set up a super specialist hospital to cater to the needs of poor and downtrodden people. Land was also allocated to this trust (which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act) in the year 1996 by the Delhi Development Authority. Construction of the hospital building was taken up which was in progress at the relevant time when the return of the assessment year 2005-06 was filed. The respondent is duly registered under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act and is also been granted approval under Section 80 G of the Act. In the assessment year in question, the aforesaid five NRIs had remitted funds from USA in US$ equivalent to `2,24,03,547/-. The . ITA No. 468/2011 page 1 of3 . Assessing Officer, however, did not credit the aforesaid amount and made addition on the ground that identity of these contributors was not established and information of all these trustees, except one was not furnished. The assessee went in appeal. In the appeal all requisite documents were filed along with the application for permitting to adduce additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It is not in dispute that if these documents are accepted they are sufficient to establish the affidavit of the contributors as well as genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of these contributors. The CIT(A) called for remitting report. According to the CIT(A), as the Assessing Officer was not responding to the same he passed the . . following order allowing the appeal and deleting the aforesaid addition. Additional evidence was adduced and the Assessing Officer had not objected to this appeal. The appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed by the ITAT. The only ground raised before us in this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal is that the additional evidence was wrongly admitted under Rule 46A of the Act. We are not convinced with these arguments. Having regard to the facts taken note of above, the Tribunal has also commented upon this aspect in the following manner:- . ITA No. 468/2011 page 2 of 3 . ?4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find merit in the argument of learned counsel CIT(A) has validly exercised his power to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A by sending copy thereof to AO, who instead of commenting on the additional evidence filed, sat on the proceedings. We also find these evidences are filed before AO on 26.12.2007 and the same was not considered and the assessment order was passed on the same day. In our view, no violation of Rule 46A can be discerned. In view thereof, we uphold the order of CIT(A).? . No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. MARCH 08, 2011 AK . . . ITA No. 468/2011 page 3 of 3 . . 14 #