KAMMAGONDANAHALLI SRI MARUTHI SEVA SAMITHI,BENGALURU V. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) , BENGALURU

ITA 315/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Kammagondanahalli Sri Maruthi Seva Samithi, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The primary dispute was regarding the treatment of a substantial voluntary donation of 7.52 Crores, which the assessee claimed as exempt. The CIT(A) had not provided the assessee an opportunity to file a rebuttal to the AO's remand report, which was argued to violate the principles of natural justice. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found merit in the assessee's request for a further opportunity to present its case, leading to the remittance of the matter back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792945 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 12A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR S.V
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.315/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Kammagondanahalli Sri Maruthi Seva Samithi, Main Office Byranayakanahalli, Tyamgondlu Hobli, Nelmangala Taluk – 562 132, Karnataka. PAN : AAATK 7928 D Vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward – 1, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed bythe CIT(A) vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/N FAC/S/250/2024-25/1071525593(1) dated 24.12.2024. 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Counsel submitted that during the course of appellate proceeding before the CIT(A), documents were submitted as additional evidence and CIT(A) called for remand report from AO and the AO submitted the remand report dated 22.04.2022 and after receiving the remand report, the learned CIT(A) did not provide opportunity to file rebuttal / rejoinder on the findings recorded by the AO in the remand proceedings and he violated the principle of natural justice and requested that one more Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.315/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 opportunity may be given to the assessee since the documents were voluminous and the AO has not examined properly. Therefore, he requested that the matter may be remitted to the AO. 3. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities. 4. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that the dispute is regarding 7.52 Crores which was received by the assessee and shown it as voluntary donation and entire receipts were claimed as exempt. The society is registered under section 12A of the Act since 01.04.2004, filed return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring Nil income. Later on 01.12.2008, the return of income was revised declaring total income of Rs.9,680/- reducing the revised claim to Rs.40,930/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, detailed questions were asked and assessee filed reply and from para No.9(a) of the Assessment Order it is noted that sum of Rs.7,52,25,500/- was received from a number of doners which were collected by various volunteers and pooled together and deposited to Trust bank accounts beyond the imagination of belief and the AO noticed that the cash was deposited in 4 accounts viz., Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 06.03.2010, Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 07.03.2010, Rs.3,01,50,000/- on 12.03.2010 and lastly Rs.1,50,75,000/- on 18.03.2008 and he noted that this huge amount cannot be collected within few days. From the above findings of the AO, we noted that the income of the assessee is pertaining to Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09. However, the AO has mentioned that cash was collected on 06.03.2010 and 07.03.2010 which is not related to the impugned Assessment Year, and added to the total income of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.315/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 5. Considering the prayer of the assessee and facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the jurisdictional AO for a fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to substantiate its case with cogent materials and not to seek unnecessary adjournments, for early disposal of the case. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 22.09.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "