Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 863 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTMaintainability of appeal u/s 260-A - Exemption u/s 11 - assessment of trust - cash donations were anonymous as contemplated u/s 115 BBC - substantial question of law of fact? - HELD THAT:- Bearing in mind the inherent limitations in the light of the provisions of section 260A of the Act, it is to be noted at the outset that the issue regarding the exemption being claimed under section 11 cannot be said to be pure question of law which could be agitated in an appeal u/s 260A. As regards the factual dispute is concerned, we find no hesitation in concurring with the observations in the impugned judgment and order of the ITAT and the submissions of Mr. Sharma that by virtue of section 68 read with rule 46A, the onus is on the assessee to substantiate that the donations received by it are not anonymous donations. Once having borne in mind this aspect, it is quite apparent that at no point of time, the appellant was able to discharge this onus. Apart from the fact that it had even failed to file the returns, it had made some attempt to furnish some record and revenue had volunteered to verify genuineness by a sample check. Barring few instances, identity of the donors could not be confirmed in view of section 133(6). Pertinently, after the appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority a new set of donors’ list was furnished stating that the first list was submitted erroneously and still the enquiry did not result in identification of the donors. The appellant had pointed out about having received cash donations from 7145 donors. The result of the verification undertaken by the assessment officer to verify from some of the donors seeking confirmation did not yield results. Consequently the appellant had miserably failed to discharge the onus. Pertinently, during verification, 8 donors who were contacted denied to have paid any donation to the appellant. ITAT has observed that all these donations were received in cash from 7145 persons. Those were not found to have been deposited in the bank account. The letters issued under section 133(6) were returned unserved with the remarks “address not found”, “insufficient address”, “addressee left”. The inspection report mentioned about donors having not found on the given address. There were incomplete and vague addresses. It has drawn adverse inference against the appellant and has concluded that the decision of the assessment officer holding the donations to be anonymous u/s115 BBC of the Act was justified on facts and in law. No error or irregularity much less giving rise to any substantial question of law.
|