Trust loses jurisdiction challenge after missing 30-day deadline under Section 124(3) for objecting to assessing officer

The ITAT Raipur held that the assessee trust could not challenge the assessing officer's jurisdiction as it failed to object within the stipulated 30-day period under Section 124(3). Regarding additions under Section 68, the tribunal found that complete donor details with addresses and telephone numbers were available, indicating the contributions were not unexplained cash credits. However, since these documents were presented as additional evidence for the first time, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the summary receipts and donor authenticity. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the Section 143(2) notice issued before Section 143(1) intimation was valid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,69,068/- towards corpus fund as income under Section 68.
2. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 144 without addressing objections raised under Sections 143(2) and 142(1).
3. Jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2).
4. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) before processing the return under Section 143(1).
5. Addition of Rs. 20,000/- included in Rs. 1,69,068/- as unexplained cash credit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,69,068/- towards corpus fund as income under Section 68:
The assessee trust contended that the amount of Rs. 1,69,068/- was a corpus fund collection for specific purposes and not part of its income. The Assessing Officer (A.O) treated these amounts as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O's decision, stating that the trust failed to provide evidence from donors specifying the donations as corpus fund. The Tribunal, however, admitted additional evidence provided by the assessee and directed the A.O to verify the authenticity of the donors' details and receipts. If the assessee's claim is validated, the addition under Section 68 would be vacated.

2. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 144 without addressing objections raised under Sections 143(2) and 142(1):
The assessee argued that the A.O ignored objections raised regarding the notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). The CIT(A) dismissed this ground, stating that the assessee must produce evidence supporting its return of income and that objections to the notice should be addressed through a writ petition in the High Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee did not raise objections within the stipulated time frame.

3. Jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2):
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O, arguing that the initial notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to object to the jurisdiction within the stipulated time period of 30 days as required under Section 124(3). Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the invalidity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O.

4. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) before processing the return under Section 143(1):
The assessee contended that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), rendering the notice invalid. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, which held that an intimation issued under Section 143(1) after a notice under Section 143(2) would be invalid. However, if the processing under Section 143(1) occurs after the notice under Section 143(2), it does not invalidate the notice. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s view and dismissed this ground of appeal.

5. Addition of Rs. 20,000/- included in Rs. 1,69,068/- as unexplained cash credit:
The assessee argued that Rs. 20,000/- included in the total addition was a provision for payment towards electricity and maintenance expenses for Bhagwat Katha and not an unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal directed the A.O to verify the details provided by the assessee and, if found correct, to vacate the addition.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee trust was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the A.O to verify the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the corpus fund and the specific directions of the donors. If the evidence is found to be in order, the addition under Section 68 will be vacated. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) and dismissed the jurisdictional challenge and the contention regarding the timing of the notice under Section 143(2).

---