Trust's review application dismissed for failing to prove genuineness of anonymous donations under Section 115BBC

The Bombay HC dismissed a review application under Section 114 CPC filed by a trust challenging assessment of anonymous donations under Section 115BBC. The trust failed to prove the genuineness of donations totaling Rs. 2,89,20,955 from 7,145 donors, despite being required to discharge the burden under Section 68 and Rule 46A. Sample verification revealed eight donors denied making donations, and notices to many donors returned unserved. The HC held that review powers are limited to correcting apparent errors, not re-arguing appeals, and the applicant's attempt constituted an impermissible re-hearing rather than identifying any error on record.

---

---

Issues:
Application for review of an order passed in an Income Tax Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. The applicant, a trust running educational institutions, filed a review application challenging the order passed by the High Court in its Income Tax Appeal. The assessment officer concluded that donations received by the trust were anonymous under section 115 BBC of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) modified the decision, but the ITAT refused to condone the delay in the applicant's appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.

2. The High Court dismissed the appeal as it found inherent limitations in deciding the appeal under section 260-A. The onus was on the applicant to prove that the donations were not anonymous, but it failed to do so. Despite producing a donors' list, many donors could not be identified, and notices sent to them returned unserved, leading to the affirmation of the ITAT's decision.

3. The applicant argued that it was entitled to benefit from circulars issued by the CBDT, but the High Court found that the circulars did not apply to the case. The High Court also noted discrepancies in the list of donors produced by the applicant, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the donations received.

4. The High Court rejected the applicant's contention that the High Court had the power to review the order under section 260-A based on various legal precedents cited by the applicant. The respondent raised objections regarding the maintainability of the review application, emphasizing that the court's review power is limited to correcting errors and not re-hearing the appeal.

5. Ultimately, the High Court held that the applicant's submissions were aimed at re-arguing the appeal rather than pointing out any error apparent on the face of the record. The court found no sufficient grounds for exercising the review jurisdiction and rejected the application.

6. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that the review jurisdiction is limited to rectifying errors that are evident on the face of the record and not to re-hear the appeal. The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the applicant to establish the authenticity of the donations received, which it failed to do adequately, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---