SRI SATHYA SAI LOKA SEVA WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed bythe CIT(E)vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1075113335(1) dated 27.03.2025, observing that there is discrepancy found in the income shown in receipts and corpus amounts indicating lack of transparency. In this regard, learned Counsel submitted that learned CIT(E) has not appreciated the correct facts of the case and there was disowning of cheque of Rs.10 lakhs deposited in bank account on 18.04.2023 which was not credited and reversed on 19.04.2023 by the bank which is clear from the bank statement produced. Therefore there is difference in the total sums as observed by the learned CIT(E) and there is total revenue donation of Rs.7,80,000/-. The details given in Paper Book Page No.17 where the corpus donation is only Rs.3 lakhs and revenue donation is Rs.7,80,000/-. Page 2 of 2 2. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of learned CIT(E). 3. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of entire material available before us, we found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, this issue is remitted to the file of learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration in the light of observations made by the learned CIT(E) in the previous Order and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents and not take unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (KESHAV DUBEY) Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 31.10.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order