M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI V. CIT ( EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 1689/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV HARIT
• Assessee Lawyers: FIROJANDHYARUZINA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 263; 63; 143(3); 142(1); 12A; 143(2); 72; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.1689 /MUM/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 ) M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST , 206, REWA CH AMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),R. NO. 617, 6 TH FLOOR, PIR A MAL CHAMBERS, LAL BAUG,PAREL,MUMBAI 400 012 PAN NO. AAATA2536P ( ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI FIROJANDHYARUZINA , SENIOR ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV HARIT , CIT D.R DATE OF HEARING : 28/ 0 5 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 /0 6 /2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI (FOR SHORT CIT) UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) , DATED 20.03. 2020. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. THE CIT ERRED IN LAW AND THE FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OF CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID JUSTIFIED AND IS CONTRARY TO T HE ESTABLISHED CASE LAWS UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS. 2. THE CIT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263. WHEN THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY THERE WAS PROPER APPLICATION OF THE MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DETAILS WERE GIVEN WHICH WERE SOUGHT FOR AND CLARIFIED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DULY EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF DONATIONS, EXPEN DITURE OF THE TRUST ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND RECEIPTS OF THE TRUST AND H ENCE THE CIT CANNOT SIT ON JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC. 143(3) WHICH WAS PASSED AFTER SUBMISSIONS OF ALL DETAILS AS PER THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE CASE WAS FULLY DISCUSSED AND REQUISITE DETAILS WERE EXAMINED HENCE THE CIT HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER S263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER THE AFORESAID GROUND'S OF APPEAL WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION WITH THE CIT(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI UNDER SEC. 12A OF THE ACT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16 ON 29.09.2015 ALONGWITH ITSI NCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10B, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS PER COMPUTER AIDED SCRUTINY SELECTION (FOR SHORT CASS) UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT. INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREAFTER ACCEPTED BY THE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017. 3. AFTER THE CULMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE CITINVOKED HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE AC T AND CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS COMPLETED IN A PERFUNCT ORY AND ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION , CROSSCHECKS OR EVEN TEST CHECKS THE CIT FORMED A PRIMA FACIE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BACKED BY HIS AFORESAID CONVICTION THE CIT ISSUE D A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (FOR SHORT SCN) , DATED 14.01.202 0, WHEREIN HE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 MAY NOT BE REVISED FOR THE FOLLO WING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN A PERFUNCTORY AND ROUTINE MANNER WITHOU T ANY VERIFICATION, CROSS CHECKS OR EVEN TEST CHECKS. THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION AT ALL, SUCH AS TO WHOM SUCH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID, OR FOR WHAT PURPOSE. ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 3 (B) THERE IS LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE RECEIPT OF RS.12.84 CRORES INCLUDE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION OF RS.11.90 CRORES. BUT NO CLARIFICATION WAS SOUGHT REGARDING DETAILS OF THE DONORS OR ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEM, AND THE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH, MERELY BY ACCEPTING FORM FC 6 FILED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 29.01.2020 TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON THE CIT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE A.O AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS QUA BOTH THE AFORESAID ISSUES AND DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES WERE CALLED FOR AND ACCEPTED ONLY AFTER NECESSARY VERIFIC ATIONS THAT WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O TO HIS SATISFACTION. AS REGARDS THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF RS.12.84 CRORES THAT WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME COMPRISED OF FOREIGN DON ATIONS OF RS.11,90,32,941/ - AND LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - . IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FORM FC - 6 T HAT WAS FILED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALED THE COMPLETE PROFILE OF THE FOREIGN DONORS , VIZ. THEIR NAMES, ADDRES SES AND PURPOSE OF THE DONATION. APART FROM THAT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD FURNISHED THE PARTY WISE DETAILS OF THE DONORS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT THA T IT WAS INCORRECT ON HIS PART TO SAY THAT THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT VERIFIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES , AND ALSO , THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE DON ATIONS . BACKED BY THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT NOW WHEN THE A.O AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS IN CONTEXT OF THE AFORESAID ISSUE S HAD ONLY AFTER BEING SATISFIED FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE , THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS CLEARLY OUSTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR INVOKING OF THE REVIS IONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SEC.263 OF THE ACT, THE ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 4 TWIN CONDITIONS THEREIN ENVISAGED, VIZ. THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WERE REQUIRED TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED. IT WAS FURTHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOW WHEN THE A.O HAD RECOGNIZED THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO EXEMPTION OF INCOME BEING A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, THUS ,IN THE ABSENCE OFANY PREJUDICE CAUSE T O THE REVENUE, THE CIT WAS PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, THE CIT AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME. OBSERVING, THAT THE A.O HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT NE CESSARY VERIFICATIONS BOTH AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES , AND ALSO , THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DONATIONS THAT WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED , BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL, THEREFORE, HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT THEREIN SET - ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 , WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER AFFORDING S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HA S ASSAILED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SEC.263 OF THE ACT , DATED 20.03.2020 BEFORE US . THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) SHRI FIRO Z ADHYARUZINA , S ENIOR A DVOCATE , AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 60 DAYS IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. ELABORATING O N THE REASONS THAT HAD LED TO THE AFORESAID DELAY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 263 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY E - MAIL ON 20.03.2020, HOWEVER, AS THE NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN WAS DECLARED ON 25.03.2020, THUS, THE AFORESAID APPEAL FOR THE SAID REASON COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD OF 60 DAYS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS ON 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2020 THERE WAS ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 5 SOME RELAXATION IN THE LOCKDOWN , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT LO O SING ANY FURTHER TIME IMMED IATELY FILED THE APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CLAIM THE LD. A.R HAD TAKEN US THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT OF MR. ALIREZA A. BUNDE ALLY, TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ,W HEREIN THE AFORESAID FACTS WERE DEPOSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN MARCH, 2020, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKING SUO MOTTO COGNIZANCE OF THE IMPACT OF COVID - 19 RESTRICTIONS ON THE COMPLIANCE S THAT WERE TO BE MADE WITHIN LIMITATION PERIODS, VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3 OF 2020, DATED 23.03.2020 HAD EXTENDED THE LIMITATION PERIODS FROM 15 TH MARCH, 2020 UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL WHICH WAS FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY THEREIN BE CONDONED . 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SEEKING OF CONDONATION OF THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT HAD LED TO THE DELAY OF 60 DAYS IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL , WE HEREIN CONDONE THE SAME. 7. ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT AS THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD CALLED FO R THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND ONLY AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENSES , AND ALSO , THE DONATIONS , BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL, THAT WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE CIT HAD TRAVERSED BEYOND THE LIMITED SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION AND REVISED THE ORDER IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED WITH HIM UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB). OUR ATTENTION W AS DRAWN BY THE LD. A.R TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 6 THE A.O UNDER SEC. 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 WHEREIN SPECIFIC QUERIES AS REGARDS DONATIONS RECEIVED , AND ALSO , THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE RAISED BY HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN COMPLIANCE TO TH E AFORESAID QUERY LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16.01.2017. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. A.R TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS REGIST ERED WITH THE DIT(EXEMPTION), VIDE THE LATTERS ORDER UNDER SEC. 12A(A), DATED 29.03.1991. THE LD. A.R FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ; COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME ; AND THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR RELATING TO ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AUDITED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SEC. 33 & 34 AND RULE 19 OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN BY THE LD. A.R TO THE APPLICATION OF ITS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IT WAS FURT HER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NO CORPUS DONATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE LD. A.R F URTHER TOOK US THROUGH FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FILED WITH THE S ECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, DIVULGING THE DONORWISE RECEIPT OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION S BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A.R ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.11.2015 ISSUED BY A C HARTERED ACCOUNT ANT , WHERE IN HE HAD INTER ALIA CERTIFIED THE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER MANNER SPECIFIED IN SEC.13 OF THE F OREIGN C ONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 1976 R.W. SUB - RULE (1) OF RULE 8 OF THE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) RULES 1976. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN BY THE LD. A.R TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS ON 31.03.2015 AND THE ANNEXURES ENCLOSED ALONGWITH THE SAME. THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 750061001006139 THAT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WITH K OKAN M ERCANTILE COOPERATIVE ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 7 BANK LIMITED, B RANCH : GOVANDI. THE LD. A.R FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE REPLY DATED 14.06.2017 THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE A.O, WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH AS PER THE FCRA RETURN THE AMOUNT TOTAL LED TO RS.11,97,48, 585.05, HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE INTEREST AND THE INCOME TAX REFUND THAT FORM ED PART OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT THE FOREIGN DONATION S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS.11,90,32,941.65. I T WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE REPLY THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ALSO RECEIVED LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - . IN ITS AFORESAID REPLY IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,88,29,498/ - WAS INCURRED TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST , VIZ. ED UCATION, MEDICAL, NATURAL CALAMIT IES AND MARRIAGE AID TO THE POOR I.E KANYAD A AN. THE LD. A.R FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE COP IES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT S, VIZ. F OREIGN DONATION A/C: RS .11,90,32,941.65; L OCAL CHEQUES DONATION A/C: R S.67,03,352/ - ; AND L OCAL DON ATIONS A/C : RS.13,88,496.36. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION S, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD CARRIED OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ,AND ALSO, THE DONATIONS, BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL , THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE TRUST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ADVERTING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT COULD VALIDLY EXERCISE HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION ONLY WHERE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O IS FOUND TO BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS, THUS , THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT BOTH THE AFOREM ENTIONED CONDITIONS VIZ. (I) THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ARE INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED IN ORDER TO VEST JURISDICTION WITH THE CIT UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AF ORESAID CLAIM THE LD. A.R HAD RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 8 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT(2000) 109 TAXMAN.COM 66 (SC). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT WHERE THE A.O IN EXERCISE OF HIS QUAS I JUDIC IAL POWERS HAD ARRIVED AT A POSSIBLE VIEW, THE SAME CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VIEW THAT WAS DRAWN BY THE A.O. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. D.G. HOUSING PROJECTS LIMITED (2012) 343 ITR 329 (DEL). FURTHER, DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, IN DORE IN THE CASE RAKESH KHANDELWAL VS. PR. CIT, ITA NO. 204/IND/2019; DATED 29.01.2020 , I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 263 IS OBLIGATED TO ESTABLISH BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY INQUIRIES THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHREE BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES VS. PCIT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 525/MUM/2016, DATED 07.07.2017 BY DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM) , HAD OBSERVED , THAT AN ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS SHOULD BE ONE WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OR HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE A.O WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY IN UNDUE HASTE. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN A CASE WHERE TWO VIEW S ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, THE SAME ON THE SAID STANDALONE BASIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER AND BROUGHT WITHIN THE REALM OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. LD. A.R FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S MEERUT FLO U R MILLS PVT. L TD. VS. CIT & ANR., ITA NO. 223 OF 2013; DATED 14.08.2019. IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITS AFORESAID ORDER HAD OBSERVED THAT A MERE NON - DISCUSSION ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 9 AND NON - MENTIONING OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT LEAD TO AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND AND THE ORDER THEREIN PASSED WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW , THE CIT , WHILE ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT MERELY STATE THAT THE A.O HAD FAILED TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE ENQUIRY BUT REMAINED UNDER A STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ON HIS OWN, FAILING WHICH , THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE A.O COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. IT WAS, THUS, SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SATISFIED WITH THE DETAILS THAT WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA BOTH THE ISSUE S IN QUESTION , THEREFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT TO CONDUCT HIS OWN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BEFORE STAMPING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O AS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE NE CESSARY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE, AND ALSO, THE DONATIONS, BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL, THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION, AND ONLY AFTER FINDING THE SAME TO BE IN ORDER HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME, TH EREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3), DATED 23.06.2017 COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON, THAT THE CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IT WAS, THUS, SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 WAS NOT AS PER THE MANDATE OF LAW, THEREFORE, THE SAMEWAS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DATED 20.03.2020. IT W AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS PER THE COMPUTER AI DED SCRUTINY SELECTION (FOR SHORT CASS) FOR TWO FOLD REASONS, VIZ. ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 10 (I). THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD RECEIVED SUBS TANTIAL AMOUNT OF FOREIGN DONATIONS ;AND (II). THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED HUGE AMOUNTS ON CHARITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE A.O WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATIONS QUA THE AFORESAID ISSUE S WHICH FORMED THE VER Y FOUNDATION FOR SELECTION OF ITS CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT , AND HAD SUMMARILY ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE CIT HAD RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 263 AND SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WITH A DIRECTION ,THAT A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT BE FRAMED AFTER AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. REBUTTING THE RELIANCE THAT WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ON FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAI RS, NEW DELHI , WHEREIN THE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREIGN DONORS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WERE DIVULG ED , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE SAID DETAILS SO FILED WERE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION BY THE RESE RVE BANK OF INDIA (FOR SHORT RBI) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT ( FOR SHORT FEMA ). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE POWERS VESTED WITH THE A.O FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY A N ASSESSEE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AS AGAINST THOSE CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE FEMA. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT A PERUSAL OF THE FORM FC 6 THAT WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FOR DRIVING HOME HIS CLAIM THAT THE COMPLETE DONOR WISE DETAILS OF THE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION S WERE FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALED A DIFFERENT STORY. TAKING US THROUGH THE COPY OF FORM FC 6 FORMING PART OF THE APB, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT A PERUSAL OF THE SAME R EVEALED BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE GATHERED THEREFROM. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT IN MAJORITY OF THE CASES ONLY THE COUNTRY OF THE DONORS ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 11 WAS MENTIONED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R T HAT THE SIMPLICITER FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUES COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SACROSANCT FOR ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION . IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. D.R HAD REL IED ON THE CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, VIZ. (I). NARESH K. PAHUJA VS. ITAT (2015) 375 ITR 526 (BOM); (II). CIT VS. SARAVANA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. (2012) 72 DTR 258 (KAR); AND (III). CIT VS. P. MOHANKALA & ORS. (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE RECONCILIATION OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTERNAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS WAS JUST A PART OF ITS INTERNAL AUDITING AND THE SAME WOULD BY NO MEANS PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QU ESTION. ADVERTING TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT WERE PRES S ED INTO SERVICE BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE SAME WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS .I N ORDER TO FORTIFY HIS AFORESAID CLAIM THE LD. D.R TOOK US THROUGH THE RESPECTIVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. ON FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O QUA THE DONATIONS RECEI VED, BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL, AS WELL AS THE HUGE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE THAT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED, THEREFORE, THE CIT HAD RIGHTLY INVOKED HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AND HAD HELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 AS ERRON EOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE U/S 263 OF THE ACT . IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS WERE SPECIFICA LLY CALLED FOR BY THE A.O COULD SAFELY BE GATHERED FROM THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSES S EE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DETAILS OF DONATIONS WERE FURNISHED ONLY TO THE TUNE OF ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 12 RS.13,88,496/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE A.O HAD SUMMARILY ACCEPTED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING THE REQUISITE VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE BALANCE LOCAL DONATIONS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (F OR SHORT SCN) THERE WAS NO REFERENCE QUA THE ISSUEOF LOCAL DONATIONS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE CIT ONLY ON TWO GROUNDS, VIZ. (I). THAT NO VERIFICATION, CR OSS CHECKS OR EVEN TEST CHECKS WERE MADE BY THE A.O WITH RESPECT TO TH E EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES; AND (II). THAT THE RECEIPT OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION S OF RS.11.90 CORES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SUMMARILY ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ; IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY NOT ALSO BE REVISED FOR THE REASON THAT THE A . O HAD FAILED TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION SAS REGARDS THE LOCAL DONATIONS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS BY THE A.O HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE FOREIGN DONATIONS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE SAME TOO WAS SUMMARILY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICAT IONS, CROSS CHECKS OR EVEN TEST CHECKS . APART FROM THAT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES WERE NEVER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, THUS, SU BMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF AFORESAID FACTS THE CIT HAD RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND OBSERVING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 13 THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HAD THUS ,RIGHTLY SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O TO FRAME A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT FOCUSING ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE S IN QUESTION. 9 . REBUTTING THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. D.R, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING QUERIED AS REGARDS THE ME NTION OF I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT S ERIAL NO. 35 OF THE DONOR WISE DETAILS OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION S THAT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE SAME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE , WHEREIN THE SAME WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED INSTEAD OF , VIZ. ORPHAN WELFARE TRUST. LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE LETTER DATED 14.06.2017 THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE A.O, PAGE 109 127 OF APB. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE DETAILS OF FOREIGN DONATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD SAFELY BE GATHERED FROM PAGE 110 117 OF THE APB. ALSO, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE LOCAL CHEQUES DONATIONS, PAGE 118 126 OF APB. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, I.E A.Y2014 - 15 HAD NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCES EITHER AS REGARDS THE FOREIGN/LOCAL DONATIONS OR THE EXPENDITURE THAT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAV E BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS IN THE SAID PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT WHILE REVISING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS OBLIGATED TO HAVE RECORDED HIS OBS ERVATIONS AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT IN ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 14 EXERCISE OF HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAD CLEARLY TRAVERSED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION THEREIN CONFERRED , AND HAD IN THE GARB OF THE POWERS VESTED WITH HIM U/S 263 HAD SOUGHT TO DISLODGE A POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O BY SEEKING TO DICTAT E THE TERMS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ORDER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PASSED. IT WAS, THUS, SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT CIT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED WITH HIM U/S 263 CANNOT SEEK SUBSTITUTION OF HIS VIEW AS AGAIN ST A POSSIBLE VIEW THAT WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. AS REGARDS THE JUDGMENTS THAT WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE SAME WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS , AND THUS, WER E NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, THUS, SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE CIT BY WRONGLY ASSUM ING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAD SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017, THEREFORE, THE SAME BE VACATED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O BE RESTORED. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AS WELL AS CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THEM TO DRIVE HOME THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3) , DATED 28.06.2017 W AS REVISED BY HIM FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN A PERFUNCTORY AND ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION , CROSS CHECKS OR EVEN TEST CHECKS. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE CIT HAD IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED WITH HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAD SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON TWO COUNTS , VIZ. (I) THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION AT ALL, VIZ. TO WHOM SUCH ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 15 AMOUNT S WERE PAID , AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE; AND (II) THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.12.84 CRORES INCLUDING FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION S OF RS.11.90 CRORES WERE SUMMARILY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O BY MERELY ACCEPTING FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE S ECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND WITH THE RBI , AND WITHOUT SEEKING DETAILS AS REGARDS THE DONORS OR ANY CORRESPONDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THEM. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR THE REQUISI TE DETAILS AND MADE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE AFORESAID ISSUE S IN QUESTION . IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE A.O HAD ONLY AFTER PERUSING TO HIS SATISFACTION THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THE AFORESAID RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER , AND THUS, ARRIVED AT A POSSIBLE VIEW AND ACCEPTED THE SAME , THERE FORE, THE CIT IN THE GARB OF HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 COULD NOT HAVE SOUGHT FOR SUBSTITUTION OF HIS VIEW AS AGAINST THAT ARRIVED AT BY TH E A.O . APART FROM THAT, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT IN CASE THE A.O HAD MADE INQUIR IES QUA THE ISSUES IN QUESTION , THOUGH INADEQUATE, THE SAME WOULD NOT ON THE SAID COUNT JUSTIFY HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS THE SAME IS FOUN D TO BE IN VIOLATIO N OF LAW. BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER, WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS FOR TWO FOLD REASONS , VIZ. (I). THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS IN RECEIPT OF LARGE FOREIGN DONATIONS ; AND (II).THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ON ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. AS SUCH, THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR SELECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS TO FACILITATE EXAMINATION OF THE AFOREMENTIONE D TWIN ISSUE S , VIZ. RECEIPT OF DONATIONS ; AND INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE BY THE TRUST ON ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IT IS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACT S , WE SHALL HEREINAFTER ADVERT TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT THAT DEHORS THE N ECESSARY ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 16 VERIFICATIONS QUA THE ISSUE S IN QUESTION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 1 1 . ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION IS STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED DONATIONS OF RS. 12.84 CRORES ( INCLUDING FOREIGN DONATIONS OF RS.11.90 CRORES ) . DURING THE COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE A.O VIDE HIS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, DATED 04.01.2017 HAD INTER ALIA DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE PARTY WISE DETAILS OF FOREIGN DONATIONS RECEIVED , IF ANY. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THE SPECIFIC QUER I ES RAISED BY THE A.O VIDE HIS AFORESAID NOTICE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7 . DETAILS OF CORPUS/NON - CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, IF ANY, I N THE FOLLOWING FORMAT : NAME. ADDRESS & PAN NO. OF DONOR AMOUNT INVOLVED I N ( RS. ) MODE OF PAYMENT (CHEQUE/DD NO. & BANK IF) NATURE OF D ONATION (CORPUS OR NON - CORPUS) 8 - 14............................................................................................................ 15. PARTY WISE DETAILS OF FOREIGN DONATION RECEIVED, IF ANY. ALSO FURN ISH A COPY OF FCRA REGISTRATION, FORM FC - 3 & AUDIT REPORT IN CASE DONATIONS ARE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. I N REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16.01.2017 ONLY FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE FCRA RETURN WHICH WAS STATED TO BE ACCOMPANIED WITH THE DETAILS OF ALL THE DONATIONS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO N - CORPUS DONATION WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. AS REGARDS THE DETAILS OF THE NON - CORPUS DONATIONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE SAME WOULD BE SUBMITTED ON THE NEXT HEARING. THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONTEXT OF THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC QUER IES THAT WAS RAISED BY THE A.O ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 17 7. TH E RE IS NO CORPUS DONATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.THE DETAILS OF N ON CORPUS DONATION WHICH WILL BE SUBMITTED ON THE NEXT HEARING. 8 14. ................................................................................................................. 15. FCRA RETURN IS ENCLOSED WITH ALL THE DONATION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 1 4 .06.2017 HAD INTERALIA SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT IT HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOREIGN DONATION S OF RS.11,90,32,941/ - . I T WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD ALSO RECEIVED LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848.36 . ALONGWITH ITS AFORESAID REPLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE F OREIGN DONATION A /C; L OCAL CHE QUES DONATION A/C ; AND LOCAL DONATIONS A/C AS WERE APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, AND ALSO SO OBSERVED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 , THE A.O IN HIS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017, VIDE Q UERY NO. 7 HAD SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS O F CORPUS/NON - CORPUS DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, IF ANY, IN A TABULAR FORMAT . ALSO, THE A.O VIDE HIS QUERY NO. 15 HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH PARTY WISE DETAILS OF FOREIGN DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, IF ANY. AS SUCH , THE ASS ESSEE WAS IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS DIRECTED TO FURNISH CERTAIN SPECIFIC DETAILS QUA EACH DONATION , VIZ. NAME, ADDRESS ANDP AN NUMBER OF THE DONOR ; AMOUNT OF DONATION; MODE OF PAYMENT (CHEQUE/DD NO.& BANK); AND NATURE OF DONATION (CORPUS OR NON - CORPUS) . IN REPL Y, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY CORPUS DONATION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS FURNISHING OF THE REQUISITE DETAILS QUA THE NON - CORPUS DONATION S THAT WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY D ATED 16.01.2017 HAD SOUGHT SOME FURTHER TIME FOR FURNISHING THE SAME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 14.06.2017 STATED THAT IT HAD DURING THE YEAR RECEIVED FOREIGN DONATIONS OF RS.11,90,32,941/ - ; AND LOCAL DONATIONS OF R S.80,91,848/ - . ALONGWITH ITS AFORESAID REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 18 ON RECORD THE COPY OF FOREIGN DONATION A/C AS WAS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. INSOFAR THE DETAILS QUA THE FOREIGN DONATIONSWERE CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DETAILS OF THE FOREIGN DONORS WERE MENTIONED IN THE FCRA FORM (COPY OF WHICH WAS ENCLOSED ALONGWITH ITS REPLY DATED 16.01.2017) . AS REGARDS THE LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE DONORS IN THE SPECIFIED FORMAT AND INST EAD PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE L OCAL DONATIONS A/C ( RS.13,88,496/ - ) ; AND LOCAL CHEQUES DONATION A/C ( RS. 67,03,352/ - ) . ON A PERUSAL OF THE FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH ITS REPLY DATED 16.01.2017, WE FIND THAT THE SAMECOM PRISE S OF TWO PARTS, VIZ. (A). INSTITUTIONAL DONORS; AND (B). INDIVIDUAL DONORS. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE DETAILS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL DONORS IN FORM FC 6, A TRUST, VIZ. SAJDIYA TRUST IS FOUND TO BE THE MAIN DONOR WHOSE NAME WAS LISTED AS REGARDS 40 D ONATIONS (OUT OF TOTAL 51 DONATIONS) THAT WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HOWEVER, EXCEPT FOR THE NAME OF THE AFORESAID DONOR, VIZ. SAJDIYA TRUST NO OTHER DETAILS, VIZ. ADDRESS OF THE SAID DONOR TRUST COULD BE GATHERED FROM THE FORM FC 6 . ON A PERUSAL OF THE FOREIGN DONATIONS A/C, WE FIND, THAT THOUGH IT CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE NARRATION OF THE JOURNAL ENTRIES THAT THE AFORESAID DONOR, VIZ. SAJDIYA TRUST WAS BASED IN ONTARIO, CANADA, HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE A SSESSEE THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE SAID DONOR WERE NEITHER FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT. AS REGARDS THE DETAILS QUA THE REMAINING THREE I NSTITUTIONAL DONORS, WE FIND THAT ON A CONJOINT PERUSAL OF THE FORM FC 6 AND THE FOREIGN DONATION A/C ONLY THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE COUNTRY /CITY WHERE TWO OF SUCH DONORS WERE BASED COULD THEREIN BE GATHERED , VIZ. (I). ORPHAN WELFARE TRUST, MUMBAI; AND (II). LADY FATEMAH (A.S). CH. TRUST, U.K . A S REGARDS THE THIRD INSTITUTIONAL ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 19 DONOR, VIZ. AL YOUSUF LLC, ITS ADDRESS COULD BE GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE FOREIGN DONATION A/C , VIZ. AL YOUSUF LLC, P.O BOX 25, DUBAI, UAE. AS REGARDS THE INDIVIDUAL DONORS, WE FIND , THAT THE FORM FC 6 THAT WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF THE DONORS AS WAS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O WERE DULY FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE SAME , AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT, AND R IGHTLY SO, ONLY DIVULGED THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES OF THE SAID DONORS. IN FACT, A PERUSAL OF THE FOREIGN DONATION A/C DID NOT REVEAL A BETTER PICTURE AND IN CASE OF MAJORITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DONORS ONLY THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES W ERE MENTIONED IN THE NARRATION TO THE JOURNAL ENTRIES, EXCEPT FOR IN C ASES WHERE THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN DONORS BASED IN DUBAI, U.A.E, WHERE THEIR RESPECTIVE P.O BOXES WERE MENTIONED. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263, AND RIGHTLY SO, THE ADDRESSES OF THE AFORESAID DONORS COULD NOT BE GATHERED FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE, THAT NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS H AD DEF IED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE A.O ANDFAILED TO DIVULGE THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE DONORS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY HIM , BUT EVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS NO EFFORT WAS MADE ON ITS PART TO DISPELALL DOUBTS AND IRREFUTABLY SUBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS TO THE HILT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE, AS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS TOO MERELY HARPED ON THE FACT THAT THE DETAILS OF THE DONORS COULD BE GATHERED FROM THE FORM FC 6. HOWEVER, A S OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, FROM A CONJOINT PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF THE DONORS AS CAN BE GATHERED FROM FORM FC 6 R.W FOREIGN DONATION A/C , IT CAN SAFELY OR IN FACT INESCAPABLY BE GATHERED THAT THE IDENTITY OF DONOR SQUA BOTH THE INSTITUTIONAL AND I NDIVIDUAL DONORS WAS NOT DISCERNIBLE THEREFROM. AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO POINT OUT ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 20 THAT WHEN THE AFORESAID FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SCN U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS ALL THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE DONORS ALONGWITH THEIR ADDRESS ES AND PURPOSE OF THE RESPECTIVE DONATION S WAS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE FORM FC 6 HENCE, NO FURTHER VERIFICATION WAS REQUIRED. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FLAGGED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS IN RECEIPT OF LARGE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION, THEREFORE, THE A.O WAS OBLIGATED TO HAVE MADE THE REQUISITE VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS SUCH FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDIN GS U/S 263, WE FIND , THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD RECEIPTS THAT WERE ISSUED TO SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN DONORS WHEREIN IN MOST OF SUCH CASES THE ADDRESSES MENTIONED AGAINST THE DONORS WERE THEIR POST BOX NUMBERS ONLY. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, WE FIND , THAT IT REMAINS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DIVULGE THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS WERE SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE AFORESAID FOREIGN DONORS, BUT IN FACT, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT, AND RIGHTLY SO, THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD ADOPTED A PERFUNCTORY APPROACH, AND MERELY GOING B Y THE INCOMPLETE DETAILS THAT WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUISITE VERIFICATIONS , HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND , THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE A.O AND HAD NOT PLACE D ON RECORD THE REQUISITE DETAILS QUA THE FOREIGN DONATIONS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY HIM VIDE HIS NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017, THE A.O, HOWEVER, DISPENSING WITH THE SAID DETAILS WHICH HE HIMSEL F WAS OF THE VIEW WERE REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO AND VERIFIED, HAD THEREAFTER ABANDONED THE VERIFICATION PROCESS THAT WAS TRIGGERED BY HIM BY CALLING FOR THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND HAD SUMMARILY ACCEPTED ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 21 THE FOREIGN DON ATIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE FORM FC 6 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT, AND RIGHTLY SO, THE DETAILS AS WERE CALLED FOR AND REQUIRED BY THE A.O FOR CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS COULD NOT AT ALL BE DECIPHERED FROM TH E FORM FC 6 THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DE HORS THE FURNISHING OF THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOREIGN DONATIONS BY THE A.O SPEAKS FOR IT SELF THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS. ALTHOUGH WE CONCUR WITH THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL THAT AN INADEQUATE INQUIRY ON THE PART OF AN A.O CANNOT FORM A BASIS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT , HOWEVER, THE FACTS AS HAVE UNFOLDED IN THE CASE BEFORE US DO NOT LEAD TO A CASE OF AN INADEQUATE INQUIRY, BUT CLEARLY POINTS OUT TO A CASE OF NO VERIFICATION QUA THE ISS UE IN QUESTION BY THE A.O . I T IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE CIT HAD SOUGHT TO DICTATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE A.O OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, VIZ. FOREIGN DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS A CASE WHERE THE A.O VIDE HIS NOT ICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 AFTER CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FOREIGN DONATIONS IN QUESTION, HAD THEREAFTER ABANDONED HIS VERIFICATIONS , AND DESPITE NON - FURNISHING OF THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND INFORMATION BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD SUM MARILY ACCEPTED ITSAFORESAID CLAIM . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ACCEPTANCE OF THE ISSUE QUA THE FOREIGN DONATIONS THAT WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS WHICH THE A.O VIDE HIS NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04. 01.2017 WAS OF THE VIEW WERE REQUIRED FOR VERIFYING THE SAME, LEADS TO THE SOLITARY VIEW THAT THE FOREIGN DONATIONS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT THAT THE A.O HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 22 EVEN THE MOST BASIC INVESTIGATION THAT WAS REQUIRED QUA THE AFORESAID ISSUE. ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 HAD NOT PLACED ON RECORD THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS REGAR DS THE FOREIGN DONATION S THAT WERE RECEIVED BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RATHER, AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263, WE FIND , THAT EVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE DONOR S INCLUD ING THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESS ES AND THE PURPOSE OF DONATION S WAS PROVIDED IN THE FORM FC 6 AND NO FURTHER VERIFICATION WAS REQUIRED. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESA ID FACT S , WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION , THAT AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263, AND RIGHTLY SO, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE FOREIGN DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FLAGGED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS , INTER ALIA , FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAD RECEIVED LARGE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN DONATIONS , THUS , A HEAVY OBLIGATION WAS CASTUP ON THE A.O TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, WHICH WOULD NOT HESITATE TO OBSERVE HE HAD ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO DO. WE, THUS, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT HAD RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT AS THE A.O HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION S AS REGARDS THE FOREIGN DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM TO THE SAID EXTENT WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 12 . WE SHALL NO W ADVERT TO THE VERIFICATIONS WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE A . O QUA THE LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - THAT ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE A.O HAD VIDE HIS ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 23 NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE CORPUS/NON - CORPUS DONATIONS THAT WER E RECEIVED BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, VIZ. NAME, ADDRESS & PAN OF THE DONOR S ; AMOUNT OF DONATION RECEIVED; MODE OF PAYMENT (CHEQUE/DD NO.& BANK); NATURE OF DONATION (CORPU S OR NON - CORPUS). ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND , THAT THOUGH T HE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT IT HAD RECEIVED LOCAL DONATIONS OF RS.80,91,848/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF THE LOCAL DONORS AS WAS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IN THE SPECIFIED FORMAT WERE NOT PROVIDED BY IT. AS I S DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE ITS R EPLYDATED 14.06.2017 FILED WITH THE A.O COPIES OF THE L OCAL CHEQUES DONATION A/C ( RS.67,03,352/ - ) ; AND (II) L OCAL DONATIONS A/C ( RS.13,88,496.36 ) . ON A PERUSAL OF THE L OCAL DONATION A/C , WE FI ND THAT THERE IS NOT A WHISPER AS REGARDS THE NAME S OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE DONATIONS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED , WHAT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR ADDRESSES; PAN NOS; OR THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF DONATION ETC . I NSOFAR THE L OCAL CHEQUES A/C IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE NAMES OF THE DONORS ALONGWITH CHEQUE NUMBERS ARE THEREIN MENTIONED, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THEIR ADDRESSES; AND PAN NOS.I T REMAINS AS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE REQUISITE DETAILS THAT WE RE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O TO VERIFY THE AFORESAID LOCAL DONATIONS, VIZ. ADDRESS ES OF THE DONORS ; PAN OF THE DONORS ETC. HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON S BEST KNOWN TO IT . EVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS WHICH WOULD HAVE IRREFUTABLY PROVE D THE IDENTITY OF THE LOCAL DONORS.I N THE ABSENCE OF THE AFORESAID DETAILS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR BY THE A.O VIDE HIS NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017, IT CAN SAFELY BE CO NCLUDED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE A.O TO HAVE VERIFIED THE AFORESAID LOCAL DONATIONS. INTERESTINGLY , WE FIND , THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SPECIFIC ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 24 DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 IN ORDER TO VERIFY TH E LOCAL DONATIONS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O, HOWEVER , ABANDONED THE PROCESS OF VERIFICATION THAT WAS TRIGGERED BY HIMBY CALLING FOR THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED THE LOCAL DONATIONS AS WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE . ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION, THAT NOW WHEN THE A.O HAD HIMSELF CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE LOCAL DONATIONS, THEREFORE , ACCEPTING THE AFORESAID DONATIONS DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE REQUISITE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE REALM OF ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNVERIFIED CLAIM BY ABANDONING THE PROCESS OF VERIFICATION , AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTING THE CLAIM AS PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THUS, IN THE BACKDROPOF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE LD. A.R THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED ONLY AFTER CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS BY THE A.O. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, WHEN THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IN ITSELF WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE BEYOND COMPREHENSION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS QUA THE ISSUE IN QUESTION HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SUMMARILY ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOCAL DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DEHORS FILING OF THE REQUISITE DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE SAME WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O, CAN ONLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS QUA THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. WE ARE AFRAID, THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO C ARRY OUT THE AFORESAID VERIFICATIONS BY NO MEANS WOULD FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF AN INADEQUATE INQUIRY, BUT IS A CLEAR CASE OF HAVING FAILED TO CARRY OUT ANY VERIFICATION. WE, THUS, IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE CIT THAT AS THE A.O HAD FAILED TO ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 25 CARRY OUT VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE LOCAL DONATION S OF RS.80,91,848/ - STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.20 17 WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 1 3 . WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT HAD ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT , AND OBSERV E D, THAT THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS , AND HAD WRONGLY SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE SAID PREMISE. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INTER ALIA FLAGGED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, FOR THE REASON , THAT IT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS. ON A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, WE FIND THAT THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD VIDE HIS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS Q UERY NO. 9 TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16.01.2017 HAD THOUGH INTER ALIA FURNISHED A BREAK - UP OF THE EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES, BUT IT FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE RECIPIENTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 12.06.201 7 PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THE EXPENSES, VIZ. S CHOOL COLLEGE RUNNING A/C;H OSPITAL MAINTENANCE A/C ; W ATER CONNECTION EXPENSES A/C ; AND M ARRIAGE AID A/C AS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION . AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE , AS AGAINST ITS CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS, HAD , HOWEVER, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 12.06.2017 PLACED ON RECORD THE BREAK - U P OF SUCH APPLICATION /EXPENSES ALONGWITH ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 26 COPIES OF THE RESPECTIVE LEDGER ACCOUNTS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,64,22,363/ - , AS UNDER : SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. EDUCATION EXPENSES RS. 54,83,016/ - 2. MEDICAL EXPENSES RS. 46,12,347/ - 3. NATURAL CALAMITY RS. 1,27,41,000/ - 4. MARRIAGE AID/KANYADAAN RS. 36,86,000/ - TOTAL RS. 2,64,22,363/ - FURTHER , A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE RECIPIENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE IRRESPECTIVE ADDRESS ES COULD NOT BE GATHERED THEREFROM . WE, THUS, FIND THAT THOUGH THE A.O HAD SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED BY IT TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECT S, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE THERETO HAD FURNISHED ONLY PART REPLY AND PLACED ON RECORD HALF BAKED DETAILS FROM WHICH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE RECIPIENTS COULD NOT BE GATHERED. HOWEVER, THE A.O DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH THE DETAILS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR BY HIM VIDE HIS NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED 04.01.2017 SUMMARILY ACCEPTED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NOT MUCH IS REQUIRED TO BE SAID ABOUT THE VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O IN CONTEXT OF THE AFORESAID ISSUE IN QUESTION, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY HIM ITSELF HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE HOLD A STRONG CONVICTION THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE A.O IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF A CLAIM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A QUERY AND CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS /INFORMATION , THEN , THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH CLAIM DEHO RS FURNISHING OF THE REPLY AND THE REQUISITE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O , CAN ONLY BE STAMPED AS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAIM WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION . WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 27 VERIFICA TION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES AS HAD BEEN NARRATED BY US HEREINABOVE , IT CAN SAFELY OR IN FACT INESCAPABLY BE GATHERED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF AN INADEQUATE VERIFICATION AS HAD BEEN CANVASSED BY THE LD. A.R, BUT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEES CLAI M HAD BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATION . IN THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION , AND THUS, HAD WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT AS THE A.O HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.88 CRORES WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENU E WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. WE, THUS, IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT THAT AS THE A.O HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11.88 CRORES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 1 4 . BEF ORE PARTING, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT NOW WHEN THE A.O HAD RECOGNIZED THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO EXEMPTION OF INCOME BEING A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PREJUDICE CAUSE TO THE REVENUE, THE CIT WAS PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SAD CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME. AS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED THE EXPENSES TOWARDS FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTIVE; AND ALSO ITS CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED DONATIONS, BOTH LOCAL AND FOREIGN, HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O WITHOUT CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ITA NO. 1689/MUM/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 28 ASSESSEE IS DEVOID AND BEREFT OF ANY MERIT, AND THUS, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 1 5 . WE, THUS, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE HAD AFTER RIGHTLY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3), DATED 28.06.2017 HAD BEEN PASSED B Y THE A.O IN A PERFUNCTORY AND ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION, CROSS CHECKS OR TEST CHECKS, HAD THUS, SET - ASIDE THE ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O TO CONDUCT A FRESH ASSESSMENT, UPHOLD HIS ORDER. 1 6 . RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 .06.2021 SD/ - SD/ - MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATE: 21 .06 .2021 PS: ROHIT COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST.REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI .