Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Peoples Forum, HIG Peoples Forum, HIG-97, Dharma Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad (Exemptions), Hyderabad Vihar, Khandagiri, Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2214 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal , AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT ( CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 15/6 6/ 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench
This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed ainst the order passed u/s.263 u/s.263 u/s.263 of of of the the the Act Act Act by by by the the the CIT(E), CIT(E), CIT(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Hyderabad at at at Vizag Vizag Vizag in ITBA/COM/F/17/2020 ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-2021/1031953118(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016- 17.
Shri S.K,.Agarwal, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shri S.K,.Agarwal, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shri S.K,.Agarwal, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a trust. It was the is a trust. It was the submission that there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on submission that there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on submission that there was a survey in the premises of the assessee on P a g e 1 | 4 notice did not contain any query in regard to anonymous donations received by the assessee much less the donation. It was the submission that as the verification had not been done by the Assessing Officer, the ld CIT (E) was right in law in directing the AO to make verification of the donations, which was in the nature of anonymous donation. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT (E) is liable to be upheld.
We have heard the rival submissions. We have also had the privilege of the consequential order passed u/s.143(3) r.w. s 263 read with section 144b of the Income tax Act on 30.3.2022. Surprisingly, the ld CIT ( E) in his order u/s.263 of the Act had directed the AO to examine the donors and make proper enquiry and redo the assessment but the AO instead of doing the verification has practically rejected the assessee’s contention and has made addition representing 30% of the donations received treating the same as anonymous donations.
We are not going into the merits of the consequential order passed u/s.143(3) r.w. 263 r.w.s 144B of the I.T.Act. However, a perusal of the original assessment order clearly shows that no examination of the issues has been done. This being so, the ld CIT (E) is very much in his powers to direct the AO to examine the same. No error in the order of the ld CIT (E) has been pointed out by the ld AR of the assessee. This being so, the order of ld CIT(E) passed u/s.263 stands upheld.
P a g e 3 | 4