AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made u/s.115BBC of the I.T.Act, as anonymous donations, even though the AO brought on record defects in maintaining records as per the provision of said section. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition at Rs. 82,600/- on account of anonymous donation by specific donors only verified on sample basis, without extrapolating the ratio to the entire donation amount in view of the details available on record. 3. The appellant craves to leave, to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal." 4. Whereas the assessee as raised the following grounds in the cross appeal filed; "1. Appellant Assessee trust contends that, the notice u/s 143(2) of the ITA, 1961; dated 03/03/2014; issued by the learned AO is bad in law, as the notice is issued in violation to the Instruction No. 10 & 13 of 2013 issued by the CBDT. 2. Appellant Assessee trust contends that, the enquiries conducted by the learned AO before 03/03/2014 (i.e. date on which notice u/s 143(2) of the ITA, 1961 is issued), are bad in law as the same were conducted without any jurisdiction / authority under the ITA, 1961. 3. Appellant Assessee trust contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. c. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. d. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. e. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. f. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (Emphasis supplied) 5.4 With this de lege lata, we now have to examine whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filing of appeal by the Revenue. In the event plea of the appellant smoke fancy and unreasonable. Nota bene, the core principles that has been culled down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in 'Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors' reported in 12 SCC 649, are compelling to be referred herein before with regards to conduct of the appellant; a. Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; b. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play is not allowed; c. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its negligence cannot be given a total go-bye in the name of liberal approach. d. If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the applications are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation; e. It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of the law of limitation. f. An Application for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....title the applicant to the benefit of the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act. 5.8 In the case under consideration, admittedly, the assessee trust has not shown any action or vigilance for a period of more than 930 days after the impugned order was served by the Revenue. Further, the assessee has not proved any inaction or negligence on the part of a third party, much less have they pleaded any action or vigilance on their own part. The assessee did not care to file present cross appeal for a long period of 930 days of service in the first part and for such further delay commencing from the expiry of 90 days from 28/02/2022. The averments made either in the application or in the affidavit are not corroborated by any evidence and since the assessee has failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing this cross appeal, therefore keeping in view the propositions of law laid in judicial precedents relating to condonation of delay and having regard to the totality of the facts & circumstances as discussed above, in our considered view the appellant is found to be casual, non-serious and non-vigilant in preferring appeal against impugned order, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anonymous in nature. 8. The Ld. DR further submitted that, on direction of Ld. FAA during remand proceedings the assessee filed new set of donors list contending that the first list was erroneously submitted by the clerk in mistaken belief and without the knowledge of chairman/president of the trust. This make belief story should not have been accepted in the first appellate proceedings. And to drive home the contention, Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on CBDT Circular No. 14/2006 issued with reference to section 115BC of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ['ITATRules' hereinafter], perused the material placed on records, case laws relied upon and duly considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. 10. In the extant appeal of the Revenue, we observed that; 10.1 In the absence of return of income for the assessment year ['AY' hereinafter] 2011-12, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was served calling upon the assessee to file return of income ['ITR' hereinafter], pursuant to such notice only, the assessee filed its ITR alongwith audited f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstead of designated secretary (d) None of the cash donation were found deposited into the bank account (d) The letters issued u/s 133(6) were mostly returned unserved with a remark 'address not found', 'insufficient address', 'addressee left', (e) From the inspectors report dt. 11/03/2014 it remained uncontroverted fact that none of the donor found at the given address (f) Most of the persons listed in the donor list do not represent complete name (g) Further most of the person listed as donors with incomplete and vague address etc., therefore, in our considered opinion nothing more was required to apply the test of human probabilities so has to held such donation as 'anonymous' u/s 115BBC of the Act. 12. Having vouched the fact and circumstance, we are heedful to state that, the appellant has dejectedly failed to discharge the onus of rebuttal of the material with which it was confronted by the AO. These uncontroverted facts beyond any iota of smoke would shows that the transaction of the receipt of the donations is abnormal, fictitious and militates against the claim of appellant that the cash donations are genuine. It is settled position of law that the burden of proving the....