2025 (6) TMI 1911 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 115BBC - anonymous donations received by an assessee society registered u/s 12A - CIT(A) deleted addition - Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) admitting additional evidence for the first time before him without confronting to the AO - HELD THAT - As in our view the matter requires fresh consideration at the end of the AO for examining the veracity of these documents filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). DR also placed on record the judgment of Everest Education Society 2024 (6) TMI 822 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein under similar circumstances the Hon ble Bombay High Court has affirmed the addition of anonymous donation received from 7145 donors. Therefore we direct the AO to examine the present case de novo in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court cited supra. Needless to say the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Cochin) addressed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition under section 115BBC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to anonymous donations of Rs. 2,31,03,413 received by an assessee society registered under section 12A for AY 2018-19. The AO had disbelieved the assessee's explanation that the amount represented anonymous corpus donations and added it to income. The CIT(A) accepted documentary evidence filed for the first time before it and deleted the addition without confronting the AO, which the Revenue challenged citing violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify its veracity, necessitating a fresh examination by the AO. It relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Everest Education Society v. ACIT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 744 (Bom.), which upheld addition of anonymous donations received from numerous donors under similar facts. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the matter de novo, afford the assessee a meaningful hearing, and pass a reasoned order in light of the cited precedent. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.