Assessee's Cross Appeal Dismissed, Revenue Appeal Allowed. Donation Treated as Anonymous.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross appeal due to failure to show sufficient cause for the delay. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the entire donation amount received by the public trust was treated as anonymous under Section 115BBC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to prove the identity of the donors.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Appeal by the Assessee
2. Treatment of Anonymous Donations under Section 115BBC of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Appeal by the Assessee:
The assessee filed a cross appeal with a delay of 1796 days. The delay was attributed to unawareness of the Revenue's appeal for 930 days and the exclusion period ordered by the Supreme Court due to COVID-19. The Tribunal examined whether there was "sufficient cause" for condonation of the delay. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others" and "Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors". It concluded that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the delay, noting that the application and affidavit were vague and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding the assessee's conduct casual and non-vigilant.

2. Treatment of Anonymous Donations under Section 115BBC of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee, a public trust, received cash donations totaling Rs. 2,89,20,955 from 7145 donors, each ranging from Rs. 3500 to Rs. 5000. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire amount as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC due to the assessee's failure to prove the identity of the donors. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted the anonymous donation to Rs. 82,600. The Tribunal noted several discrepancies, such as incomplete donor information, unserved notices, and unverifiable addresses. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the donations. It found the transactions to be abnormal and fictitious, applying the test of human probabilities and referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in "CIT Vs Durga Prasad More", "CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull", and "CIT Vs P Mohanakala". The Tribunal restored the AO's order, treating the entire donation amount as anonymous.

Conclusion:
The cross appeal by the assessee was dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause for the delay. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the entire donation amount was treated as anonymous under Section 115BBC.

---