Court advises petitioner to pursue appellate remedies, emphasizing mixed questions of fact and law

The court disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue available appellate remedies and not expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The court emphasized that the issues involved were mixed questions of fact and law, best decided by appellate authorities. The petitioner was instructed to comply with requisitions in letters and file a return of income, with the opportunity to challenge any adverse reassessment order in appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Jurisdictional issue regarding the reopening of assessment.
3. Whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
4. The applicability of Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The availability of alternate and efficacious remedies to the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice for Reopening the Assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14:

The petitioner, The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), challenged the notice dated 23rd March 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The notice was based on the belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice lacked tangible material and was merely a change of opinion.

2. Jurisdictional Issue Regarding the Reopening of Assessment:

The petitioner contended that there was no basis to infer escapement of income and that the reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction. The objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by the authorities, leading to the filing of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer did not have any occasion to apply his mind to various issues during the original assessment.

3. Whether the Income Chargeable to Tax Has Escaped Assessment:

The Assessing Officer found that the Annual Information Return (AIR) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 showed cash deposits amounting to Rs. 257 crores, which were not offered to tax under Section 115BBC of the IT Act. The petitioner argued that the donations received were not accompanied by any specific direction and thus should not be treated as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gurudev Siddhapeeth vs. Income Tax Officer, which stated that Section 115BBC was enacted to tax unaccounted income shown as donations received by educational and medical institutions run by a charitable/religious trust.

4. The Applicability of Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner argued that as a mixed-purpose trust (both charitable and religious), the donations received should not be taxed under Section 115BBC. The petitioner relied on various judgments and circulars, including the CBDT Circular dated 28th December 2006, which supported their claim. The petitioner also referred to the decision of the High Court of Delhi and the judgment of the High Court reported in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Naraindham Trust.

5. The Availability of Alternate and Efficacious Remedies to the Petitioner:

The court noted that the petitioner had an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of approaching the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court referred to its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 395 of 2018, where it held that the issues raised were mixed questions of fact and law and should be decided by the appellate authorities. The court emphasized that it would not be safe and proper to go into such mixed questions in the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:

The court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the petitioner should pursue the available appellate remedies. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the issues to be decided by the appellate authorities. The court noted that any expression of opinion on disputed factual matters would prejudice the case of either side, and the issues involved were not purely legal but mixed questions of fact and law. The petitioner was advised to comply with the requisition in the letters and file a return of income, with the option to challenge any adverse reassessment order in appeal.

---