TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....263 of the Act was received by the assessee on 02/03/2020. Hence, the due date for filing of appeal falls on 01/05/2020. We find that assessee has filed a delay condonation petition explaining the fact that due to Covid-19 pandemic, lockdown was imposed from 24/03/2020 and by placing reliance on the Government of India of notification No.218979 dated 31/03/2020 in Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance 2020 (No.2 of 2020) dated 31/3/2020 as per Clause 3(1)(b) extending the time limit specified in Income Tax Act which falls during the period from 20th day of March 2020 to 29th June 2020 for the purpose of filing appeal, till 30/06/2020 or such other date as the Central Government by notification specify in this behalf. Subsequently, the Government vide Notification No.35/2020 dated 24/06/2020, has extended the said time limit up to 31/03/2021. In view of the same, we are inclined to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal of the assessee. We hold that there is no delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. We have heard rival submissions and peruse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication and Public Awareness of Rs. 8,86,726/-, Relationship and Salaries of Rs. 4,46,69,433/- and Expenditure on objects of the Trust of Rs. 5.75 Crores and the same has been accepted as such without any verification. Except for the breakup of expenses, the AO has not obtained any other details or verified the expenses, even on test check basis. 3.2. Accordingly, the ld., PCIT sought to invoke his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by issuing show-cause notice to the assessee as to why the order passed by the ld. AO be set aside. 3.3. We find that assessee had submitted before the ld. PCIT that several queries were raised by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and all the queries were duly replied by the assessee by filing the requisite details. The ld. AO after examination of those details together with the accounts of the assessee and after making necessary enquiries and after due application of mind had accepted the return of income of the assessee. Accordingly, primarily, invocation of revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act was objected to by the assessee. It was pointed out that assessee had indeed furnished the details of corpus donations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, the assessee in respect of 'donations received from individuals', further submitted the name of the donors together with their PAN and amount of donations branchwise. Similarly, the assessee furnished the 'donations received from corporates' above Rs. 50,000/- containing the name of the donor, PAN and the amounts received branchwise. Similarly, the assessee had furnished partywise details of 'donations received through Delhi Branch (Marathon)' containing name of the donor, their PAN and the amount of donation. Similarly, the assessee furnished the details of 'donations received in various branches from various charitable organisations' containing name of the donor, public trust registration details, their PAN and amounts of donation. Similarly, assessee furnished the details of 'donations received in head office' containing the name of the donors, their PAN and amount of donation. Similarly, the assessee furnished the details of 'donation - support direct' containing name of the persons, their PAN and the amount of donations. In the said list, the donations less than Rs. 50,000/- itself amounted to Rs. 3,29,57,098/-, for which the details were not given as it ran i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 2006-07 44,075,771.00 2007-08 44,075,771.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2007-08 49,905,096.00 2008-09 49,905,096.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2008-09 43,029,019.00 2009-10 43,029,119.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2009-10 41,5170,057.0 2010-11 41,517,057.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2010-11 40,999,043.00 2011-12 40,999,043.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2011-12 38,500,000.00 2012-13 38,500,000.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL 2012-13 27,000,000.00 2013-14 27,000,000.00 Objects of the Trust Objects of the Trust NIL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature. These details were furnished before the ld. AO vide letter dated 12/06/2017 which are enclosed in pages 87-128 of the paper book. 3.5. With regard to the observation made by the ld. PCIT in para 4A of his order that assessee had not furnished confirmation from donors is concerned, we find that the ld. AR argued that no confirmation from donors was sought for by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. In any case, we find that there is no requirement in law that confirmation from donors should be filed. From the aforesaid list, we could also find that some confirmations were indeed voluntarily filed by the assessee before the ld. AO. We find that the ld. AO had sought for details of donors in respect of donations above Rs. 50,000/- which was duly provided before him. Even the entire expenditure incurred on objectives of the trust totaling to Rs. 12,64,36,953/- which was mentioned in para 4C in page 3 of the order of the ld. PCIT were duly furnished by the assessee as stated in the aforesaid list before the ld. AO. In fact the aforesaid details were furnished by the assessee before the ld. AO in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 04/01/2017 in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re order of the ld. PCIT, we find that nowhere the ld. PCIT had stated that assessee had not furnished any details before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and that the such details were incorrect thereby making the order of the ld. AO erroneous. In other words, the ld. PCIT does not state categorically how the order framed by the ld. AO was erroneous. The ld. AR made a statement from the Bar that there is not even a single donation which has been received in cash and that the donations received were either made by way of online transfer or by account payee cheque or account payee demand draft. In fact the ld. AR also drew our attention to pages 195 to 287 of the paper book (duly admitting that the same were not filed before the lower authorities) wherein, in pages 200-230 of the paper book, the entire brochures that are part and parcel of the annual report of the assessee trust are enclosed. In other words, the said documents enclosed in pages 200-230 of the paper book though not filed before the lower authorities, merely contained the profile and various activities carried out by the assessee trust together with photos thereon. These are nothing but appeal pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails filed before the ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Nowhere the ld. PCIT had stated all these details filed were wrong. 3.8. We find that in case if the ld. PCIT is of the opinion that the ld. AO had not made requisite enquiries, then he should have made the requisite enquiries and brought on record where the ld. AO had gone wrong. Admittedly, this has not been done in the instant case. We find that the ld. AR in this regard had rightly placed reliance on this on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.705 of 2017 dated 05/09/2017. For the sake of convenience, the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 1. "The Revenue is in appeal against an order dated 12th January 2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (`ITAT') in ITA No. 2813/De1/2016 for the Assessment Year (`AY') 2011-12. 2. The short question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (`PCIT') passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Ace) setting aside the original assessment order dated 31st December 2013 passed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." 8. Thereafter the impugned order dated 30th March 2016 was passed by the PCIT. It is seen that one of the factors that weighed with the PCIT in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was Circular No. 9 of 2014 dated 23rd April 2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which stated that "under the BOT arrangement an assessee would only be allowed amortization in respect of expenditure incurred in creation of the infrastructure facility over the period of BOT arrangement and no depreciation would be allowed on such infrastructure under provisions of the Act". The case of the Assessee was that such a Circular could not dictate to the AO how he should frame his assessment and, to the extent the Circular was prejudicial to the Assessee, its application would be beyond the scope and ambit of the powers conferred on the Board under Section 119 of the Act. 9. It is seen, in the order dated 30th March 2016, the PCIT has proceeded by setting out the contents of the SCN and the contents of the reply given by the Assessee. It appears that no inquiry, as such, was undertaken by the PCIT to come to the conclusion that the original assessment order was er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-verify the same details. In this regard, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Modicare Ltd., in ITA No.759 of 2017; ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., reported in 343 ITR 329; DIT vs. Jyothi Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388, had uniformly held that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT cannot be outsourced by the ld. PCIT to the ld. AO. In either case, there is a huge difference between 'lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry'. It is for the ld. AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction what is required under law. In this regard, reliance has been rightly placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 332 ITR 167. 3.10. The ld. DR vehemently relied on the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act which has been brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/06/2015 to support the action of the ld. PCIT. In this regard, we find that the ld. PCIT had not invoked Explanation 2 to Section 263 in his entire order passed u/s.263 of the Act. Despite this fact, for academic reasons, we proceed to address the arguments of the ld. DR in this regard. The said explanatio....