Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income and an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made under Section 115BBI of the Act. The assessee appealed the addition, but the CIT(A) upheld it without deciding on merits, citing lack of explanation from the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit and had passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing a non-speaking order without deciding the appeal on merit and whether corpus donations are exempt under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(1), 115BBI, 11(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), Ranchi in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078479135, order dated 14.07.2025. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2023. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) and an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made under section 115BBI of the Act, resulting in a demand of Rs. 3,93,280/-. Aggrieved, assessee appealed before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), who vide order dated 14.7.202025 has upheld the addition. Against the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has observed that the assessee was provided with an opportunity to explain the nature of the addition and substantiate the claim of exemption under section 11(1)(d). He further, noted that the assessee failed to appear or furnish any evidence despite adequate opportunity. Hence, Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in the absence of any rebuttal or supporting documentation, the claim that the donations were corpus donations cannot be accepted. Therefore, in the absence of any response or supporting evidence from the assessee, the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made under section 115BBI was upheld. However, it was the contention of the AR that AO erred in law and on facts by invoking the provisions of Section 115BBI of the Act and taxing the corpus donations received by the appellant at the maximum marginal rate, disregarding that such donations are exempt under section 11(1)9d) of the Act when received with specific directions and CIT(A) also has erred in confirming the same.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I note that in appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merit and only noted that there is no explanation from the assessee, he upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Addl/JCIT(A) to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish all the requisite evidences during the proceedings to canvass its case properly and fully cooperate with the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A).