TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. S.S. Kazi Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Sharma Standing Counsel. ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : This is an assessee s appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. The appellant which is a trust primarily engaged in running educational institutions, is impugning the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed in the appeal preferred by the Revenue under section 253 of the Act. 3. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Kazi for the appellant and Mr. Sharma for the revenue. 4. Needless to state at the outset that this being an appeal under section 260-A of the Act, the appellant has to demonstrate that the matter involves some substantial question of law. Bearing in mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment is not fair and proper, verification of only some of the donors was undertaken which constituted barely less than 1% of the total donors. The appellant was under an obligation to maintain only a list of the donors containing their names and addresses. It was not under any obligation to further substantiate their identity. Section 115 BBC could not have been invoked. The assessment officer had failed to examine this aspect which error was corrected by the first appellate authority. According to him, following substantial questions of law would arise : (1) Whether the notice u/sec. 143(2) of the I.T.A. 1961 dt. 3.2.2014 issued by the A.O. is bad in law? (2) Whether the notice u/sect. 143(2) issued by the A.O. is in vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary evidence on record is perverse ? (10) Whether the ITAT and the A.O. were justified in holding that, the trust received anonymous donation, when the society is a registered society under the Provisions of Section 12 AA of the Act, it enjoyed the exemption as provided U/sec. 11 of the Act. The registration of society has not been withdrawn even on account of the finding the donor s are not genuine ? (11) When the assessee had discharged his burden by leading evidence then, in such circumstances, whether the finding recorded by the Ld. Tribunal regarding rebuttal is perverse? (12) Whether the ITAT could go beyond the remand report submitted by the A.O.? (13) Whether the tribunal was justified in confirming the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 under section 260A. 13. 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. 14. 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 attem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
