In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer 46, Rajendra Nagar, Baluaghat, (Exemption), Allahabad Allahabad-211003, U.P. Pan: Aahts9123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of 14.10.2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Dated 28.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Allahabad Dated 30.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 28.09.2024 Affirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,97,69,650/- On Account Of Donation Received & Rejection Of The Submissions Of The Appellant That Appeal Proceedings Pending Against The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.03.2016 Are Infructuous Is Absolutely Illegal & Against The Principles Of Law. 2. Because The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit V. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [27.07.2007] Had Observed That When An Order Of Assessment Is Reopened, The Previous Assessment Will Be Held To Be Set Aside & The Whole Proceedings Would Start Afresh & In The Case In Hands The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Has Been Set-Aside By The Then Incumbent Ld. Cit(E); That Is To Say That No Assessment Existed On The Date When Order Dated 28.02.2018 Under Section 263 Of The Act Was Passed By The Then Incumbent Cit(E). 3. Because Section 263 Of The Act Grants Power To The Jurisdictional Commissioner To Direct For Revision Of Orders & Reads As Under (Relevant Statute Quoted):

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT (Exemption) had further observed that even though the anonymous donations amounting to Rs. 1,97,69,650/- had been charged to tax under section 115BBC, the interest under section 234A and 234B had not been charged. The ld. Sr. DR pointed out that this order under section