What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's undertaking to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.

The assessee trust appealed an order confirming an addition of Rs. 15,53,159/- on account of corpus donations. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper notice, and if the corpus donation addition was justified without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

Urmila Devi Charitable Trust… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv

ORDER The assessee filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds:

1. “That on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer to make addition of Rs. 15,53,159/- to the income of the appellant in respect of corpus donation received to the corpus fund though complete details are maintained for the donations received and thus could not be termed as anonymous donation. The basis adopted and the finding recorded is simply based on surmises, conjectures and on hypothetical reasonings.

2. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ghaziabad erred in holding the appellant in default for non appearance.”

Facts narrated by the Revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order ex-parte against the assessee without serving the notice upon the assessee. He, further, stated that the assessee is having in possession of all the evidences for substantiating its claim which can be filed before the AO. He requested that issue in dispute may be set aside to the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh as per law after giving due opportunity to the assessee. He undertakes assessee will not take any unnecessary adjournment and will cooperate before the AO for completion of the assessment. He, further, undertakes that he will file all the necessary evidences for substantiating of its claim without wasting any time. He requested that issue in dispute may be set aside to the AO to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity to the assessee for producing all the necessary evidences.

Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee and relied upon the order passed by the Revenue authority. He stated that the Revenue authority has given full opportunity to the assessee. Assessee has not cooperated before both the authorities below. He requested that the impugned order may be upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

I have heard both the parties, perused the relevant record available with me specially the impugned orders passed by the Revenue authorities. No doubt, the assessee remain non-cooperate before the authorities below. In my view, in the interest of justice, as undertaken given by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to cooperate before the Assessing Officer and to file all the necessary documentary evidences for substantiating its claim. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue in dispute is set aside to the AO to decide the same afresh as per law after giving full opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

URMILA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments