TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising out of assessment order dated 31.12.2019 of Ld. Assessing Officer / DCIT, Circle Exempt-1(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.12.2017 disclosing Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.09.2018 was issued to the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued from time to time. The assessee filed few details. Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to certain parties. The assessee filed replies darted 23.11.2019 and 13.12.2019. A show cause notice dated 19.12.2019 was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings void ab initio and unlawful vide this Hon'ble Tribunal in Anita Garg v. ITO., ITA No. 4053/Del/2024, Shilpi Sardana v. DCIT., ITA No. 1425/Del/2024. 3. That the impugned assessment proceedings are vitiated in law and liable to be quashed as the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2018 does not specify whether the scrutiny is limited, complete or compulsory manual, contrary to the mandate of binding CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 vide Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., [2004] 136 Taxman 491. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the impugned action of the Respondent in treating corpus donations of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 9 are general in nature. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are challenging notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not in accordance with CBDT notification dated 09.08.2018 were not pressed. Grounds of appeal Nos. 4 to 8 regarding addition upheld by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) representing corpus and voluntary donations u/s 115BBC of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,29,55,000/- were raised. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had furnished return of income declaring nil income. The breakup of aggregate donation of Rs. 2,29,55,000/- was as under: 8. The breakup of aggregate donation of Rs. 2,29,55,000/- is as under: Sr. No. Nature of Donation Amount (Rs.) i) Voluntary donatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N and address of the donors. Further states; however, since the relevant bank account statements showing the donation receipts was not submitted by assessee thus the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions remain unverified. Thus at no point of time the identity of the donor has been disputed in the remand report. Further the adverse observations as to non-compliance u/s 133(6) and absence of independent verifications or the observation that appellant's counter arguments do not adequately addressed the gaps for instance relying on cursory ITR details or settlement agreements does not substitutes for maintained record of donor particular at time of receipt. The finding is here too factually incorrect and patently untenable a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sh. Amogh Dusad (Gupta) 5,00,000 (868) vi) Sh. Ajay Gupta 2,50,000 (869) vii) Nidhi Serawat 1,00,000 (725, 878) viii) Sh. Kishan Saraf 1,00,000 (879) ix) Sh. Urvee Jain 90,000 (881) x) Sh. Sandeep Singhal 4,00,000 (870) xi) Shikha Singhal 50,000 (871) xii) Sh. Piyush Chawla 1,85,000 (882) xiii) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar 80,000 (872) xiv) Sh. Kaushal Kumar 70,000 (883) xv) Sh. Piysh Arora 1,00,000 (884) xvi) Sh. Deepak Raj Purohit 1,00,000 (796, 873) xvii) Sh. Sunil Kumar 80,000 (874) xviii) M/s Medibios Laboratories (P) Ltd. 7,20,000 (812, 875) xix) M/s Emil Pharmaceutical Industries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contributions qualify as anonymous donation is factually incorrect. 7. A co-ordinate bench in order dated 18.09.2012 in ITA No. 1041/Del/2012, Hans Raj Samarak Society vs. DIT affirmed by Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Hans Raj Samarak Society reported in 217 taxmann 114 in para 7.2 observed as under: "7.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. It has already been held by us that the donations received by the assessee are not anonymous donations. The details in respect of the name and address are available in possession of the AO in the form of the name and address are available in possession of the AO in the form of donation receipts, which were impounded in the course of survey. The ....