Facts
Voliti Foundation appealed against the rejection of its Section 11 exemption claim for AY 2014-15 by lower authorities, resulting in all receipts being assessed without benefit. A 486-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the assessee's counsel confirmed no further details could be presented even if an additional opportunity was provided.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal. Given the assessee's inability to provide any further details or evidence regarding expenditure, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the rejection of the Section 11 exemption claim.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the assessee's Section 11 exemption claim was justified when the assessee failed to provide supporting details for expenditure.
Sections Cited
Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049751812(1), dated 14.02.2023, in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-40/10416/2016-17, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires that there is delay of 486 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal. For the reasons stated by the assessee in it’s condonation petition explaining the delay in filing the instant appeal on account of circumstances
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that all of it’s receipts have been assessed without giving any benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. I put a specific query to the learned counsel as to whether the said expenditure could be pleaded and proved if the assessee is afforded one more inning before the Assessing Officer. The reply received from the assessee’s side is categorically negative only. That being the case and in absence of any detail forthcoming from the assessee’s side, I have no other option but to uphold the learned lower authorities’ impugned action on both the foregoing counts. Rejected accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 19.12.2024.