MAC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI

In AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 as impugned before us, we find that the assessee has failed to make any effective representation during first appellate proceedings and Ld. AR has raised an issue of violation of natural justice and seek another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. The same is on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) has merely relied on the earlier decisions whereas Ld. AO has not carried out any independent investigation or examination of persons who have donated monies to M/s United Education Foundation. In the absence of such an examination, it could not be concluded that the donations were nothing but capitation fees in these years also. The Ld. AR has sought distinction in the facts of earlier years on the ground that in earlier years, 27 persons were examined who conceded that they had paid capitation fees. However, in these years, no such investigation or examination has been carried out and there is no evidence regarding payment of capitation fees. The Ld. AR has also asserted that entire donation has been received from another trust which has been applied by way of donation to other trusts having similar objects and therefore, the assessee is deemed to have fulfilled all the conditions to lay claim on the impugned deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that all these aspects were not considered by any of the lower authorities. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before lower authorities. All the issues are kept open. The impugned orders, in both the years, are set aside and both the appeals are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the factual matrix of impugned years. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. \

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes.

From the ld. CIT(A) order, we find that purported first notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 25.12.2020 during Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent two notices were sent suddenly on 26.07.2024 and 07.08.2024 after a gap of almost 3 years 8 months. However, there is no evidence on record that how these notices were served on the assessee. Hnece, on these grounds ld. CIT(A). 9. We have also gone through the order of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s MAC Charities in ITA Nos.1169/Chny/2023 & 1215/Chny/2023 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 dated 10.07.2024 in entirety. Hence, Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before lower authorities. All the issues are kept open. The impugned orders, in both the years, are set aside and both the appeals are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the factual matrix of impugned years. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. 10. Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court 24th day of February, 2025. (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु कुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 24-02-2025 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF