Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,40,000 as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that the donors were identified and the donations were for the Trust's activities over 15 years.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed the donation details before the Assessing Officer but had provided them before the CIT(A). Since these were not considered by the CIT(A) and were crucial, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of anonymous donations without appreciating that donors were identified and provided details, and whether taxing the full amount in one year was justified.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 115BBC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Visakhapatnam under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.02.2025 for the A.Y.2017-18 emanating from order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 14.11.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : [A] “1. Whether the Honourable ADDL/JCIT (A) -1, Vishakhapatnam erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.13,40,000 as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the donors were identified and details such as name, PAN, and address were provided.
2. Whether the Honourable ADDL/JCIT (A) -1, Vishakhapatnam failed to appreciate the appellant’s plea that the donation amount was intended for the activities of the Trust extended over 15 years, and therefore, taxing the full amount in one year was unjustified.
3. Whether the Honourable ADDL/JCIT (A) -1, Vishakhapatnam failed to properly consider the documentary evidence and written submissions provided by the appellant in the course of appellate proceedings.
4. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter or amend any ground/grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. It is observed that assessee had not filed details of donations before the Assessing Officer. However, Assessee had filed names of the donors, address, PAN Numbers before the ld.CIT(A). It seems that [A] ld.CIT(A) has not considered these facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, as the details of the donors were not filed before the Assessing Officer, it becomes additional evidence, hence we set- aside the case to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary details before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.