DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. VIGHNAHARTHA TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3529/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2634 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Set aside
• Section: 263; 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3529 & 3530/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. CIT (Exemption)-2(1), 6 th floor, MTNL Telephone Exchange Building, Dr. GD Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai-400026. Vs. Vighnahartha Trust, 56, Hurray City of Joy, Near Railway Station, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. PAN NO. AAATV 8040 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals filed electronically by the Revenue are directed against two separate orders, both dated 11.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011 addition to returned income and 2. The facts and circumstances identical, both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order. 3. Despite notifying none attended on therefore, the appeal was heard ex hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 4. We find that in this case, the impugned assessment order has been passed in compliance to the direction of the Ld. of Income-tax-exemption [in short the ‘CIT(E)’ ] the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2021 holding the assessment order passed originally by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that said order of the CIT(E) has been cancelled by the Co the Tribunal in ITA No. 1284/M/2021 and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment order consequent to such order u/s 263 of the Act and has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding order of the Assessing officer of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the amount of Rs 5,52,04,903, being voluntarily contribution received towards ITA No assessment year 2011-12, in relation to proceedings of quantum to returned income and penalty proceedings respectively. The facts and circumstances involved in the appeals identical, both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order. Despite notifying none attended on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). We find that in this case, the impugned assessment order has been passed in compliance to the direction of the Ld. exemption [in short the ‘CIT(E)’ ]passed u/s 263 of tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2021 holding the assessment order passed originally by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that said order of the CIT(E) has been cancelled by the Co-ordinat the Tribunal in ITA No. 1284/M/2021 and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) the assessment order consequent to such order u/s 263 of has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding Assessing officer did not survive. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the amount of Rs 5,52,04,903, being voluntarily contribution received towards Vighnahartha Trust 2 ITA Nos. 3529 & 3530/Mum/2023 proceedings of quantum penalty proceedings respectively. involved in the appeals being identical, both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by behalf of the assessee and parte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). We find that in this case, the impugned assessment order has been passed in compliance to the direction of the Ld. Commissioner passed u/s 263 of tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2021 holding the assessment order passed originally by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that said ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1284/M/2021 and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) the assessment order consequent to such order u/s 263 of has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that he relevant finding “4. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the amount of Rs 5,52,04,903, being voluntarily contribution received towards building fund for the year under reference as anonymous donations within the meaning of section 115BBC of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has not correctly appreciated the facts and law in its entirety, inasmuch as the appellants have contributions are received and as such, cannot be termed as 'anonymous donations' per the provisions of section 115BBC(3) of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deficit of Rs 5,30,22,671 suffered by the appellants in respect of activities carried out during the year under reference to be carried forward for subsequent years for the reason that the return of income filed by the appellants for year under reference is not in prescribed for and hence, invalid.” 4.1 Similarly, the penalty proceedi also been initiated in the assessment ord proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, which has been cancelled by the ld CIT(A) and Revenue has challenged appeal in ITA No. 3529/Mum/2023 4.2 We find that the ld CIT(A) has set aside the impugned orders of the Assessing officer in assessment order and second ground that the order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), assessment and penalty order don’t survive. W infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in d accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised in both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. ITA No building fund for the year under reference as anonymous donations the meaning of section 115BBC of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has not correctly appreciated the facts and law in its entirety, inasmuch as the appellants have given details of all the donors from whom voluntary contributions are received and as such, cannot be termed as 'anonymous donations' per the provisions of section 115BBC(3) of 5. The Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deficit of Rs 71 suffered by the appellants in respect of activities carried out during the year under reference to be carried forward for subsequent years for the reason that the return of income filed by the appellants for year under reference is not in prescribed for and hence, invalid.” Similarly, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ha also been initiated in the assessment order passed consequent to u/s 263 of the Act, which has been cancelled by the ld CIT(A) and Revenue has challenged the said cancellation by way of appeal in ITA No. 3529/Mum/2023. We find that the ld CIT(A) has set aside the impugned orders of the Assessing officer in respective appeals, first assessment order and second, against the penalty order the order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), thus, consequent assessment and penalty order don’t survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in d accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised in both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Vighnahartha Trust 3 ITA Nos. 3529 & 3530/Mum/2023 building fund for the year under reference as anonymous donations The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has not correctly appreciated the facts and law in its entirety, inasmuch as the given details of all the donors from whom voluntary contributions are received and as such, cannot be termed as 'anonymous donations' per the provisions of section 115BBC(3) of 5. The Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deficit of Rs 71 suffered by the appellants in respect of activities carried out during the year under reference to be carried forward for subsequent years for the reason that the return of income filed by the appellants for year under reference is not in prescribed form ngs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had er passed consequent to u/s 263 of the Act, which has been cancelled by the ld the said cancellation by way of We find that the ld CIT(A) has set aside the impugned orders appeals, first, against the against the penalty order, on the the order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the thus, consequent e do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in dispute and, accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised in both the 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/04/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024. - Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKAS JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Vighnahartha Trust 4 ITA Nos. 3529 & 3530/Mum/2023 In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. /04/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai