SH. PAHAL, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXMPTION), JALANDHAR

ITA 43/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3016 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 43/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pahal, 36-New Vivekanand Park Maqsudan, Jalandhar [PAN: AAATP 2439C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The captioned appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 2/10532/17-18/CIT(A)/Jal dated 03.07.2018 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13. The appellate order was generated as per the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward, Jalandhar passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 12/09/2017. 2. The appeal was filed before bench with delay of 106 days. The counsel of the assessee filed condonation of delay & explained the reason. The managing trustee, Sh. Lakhbir Singh was suffering from serious illness of ‘relapsed multiple ITA No. 43/Asr/2019 Pahal v. ITO 2 myeloma’. He dealt the legal matter of the trust. Due to hiss illness the appeal was filed in delay. The delay is well explained. Accordingly, the delay of 106 days is condoned and appeal is to be heard. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a trust and received donation from different parties. The ld. AO added back Rs. 5,72,600/- as anonymous donation from different parties with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) verified the documents related PAN and details of the donors and reduced addition amount of Rs.2,15,000/-. Accordingly, the addition was sustained amount to Rs.2,50,000/-. The ld Counsel of the assessee had filed additional evidences related the proof identity of donors. The additional evidence is accepted by considering the apex court in the case of Tek Ram vs CIT, 44 taxmann.com 367. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. In the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. appellate authority was unable to verify eight donors about their identities. The observations of the ld. CIT(A) is as follows: “4.4. I have gone through the evidence available on record and find that in case of following parties in the list filed by the appellant, complete details have not been provided:- i) Gurdial Singh at serial no. 8 – (receipt no. 719) Rs.20,000 ii) Ramanjeet Singh at serial no. 25 (receipt no. 925) Rs.10,000/- iii) Satpal & Sons at serial no. 26 (receipt no. 1172) Rs.20,000/- iv) S. D. College at serial no. 28 to 30-Rs.20,000 each (receipt no. 933 to 935 Rs. 60,000 v) S. Baldev Singh at serial no. 58 to 60 – Rs.20,000 each (receipt no. 1979 to 1981) Rs.60,000 Rs.60,000 vi) Manjit Kaur at serial no. 69 (receipt no. 947) Rs.20,000 vii) Mandeep Singh at serial no. 73 (receipt no. 1983) Rs.10,000 ITA No. 43/Asr/2019 Pahal v. ITO 3 viii) Nimratdeep at serial no. 75 (receipt no. 1985) Rs.15,000 Total Rs.2,15,000 4.5 Thus, in view of the above mentioned facts, I find that appellant has not been able to discharge the onus which is placed upon him as neither PAN is available nor the donation has been received through the banking channels. Further, appellant has not been able to obtain their confirmation and complete addresses. Thus, I confirm the addition of Rs.2,15,000 on account of anonymous donations out of the total addition of Rs.5,72,600/- made by the AO u/s 115 BBC of the IT Act.” 5. The ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper book on dated 25.04.2022 complied with all relevant documents related to verification of 8 donors. The details were filed for verification. The summary of the details evidence of the donors is reproduced hereunder from the assessee’s paper book: ITA No. 43/Asr/2019 Pahal v. ITO 4 6. The ld. DR gone through the records of the assessee not expressed any objection related to the submission of the ld. counsel of assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The assessee filed the details supporting evidence related to its claim amount of Rs.2,15,000/- received from seven donors. The copies of PAN, Passport, Aadhar are enclosed with the paper book as proof of identities. Accordingly, the identity of the donors related payment of donation amount of Rs.2,15,000/- is accepted. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 05.05.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order