Angika Development Society v. Asst. Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Inv.circle-I

$~6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 897/2019, CM APPL. 45154/2019, CM APPL. 45155/2019 ANGIKA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY..... Appellant Through:Mr. Shashank Singh and Mr. ArjunMinocha , Advs.versus ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),INV.CIRCLE-I..... Respondent Through:Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. Standingcounsel for Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr.Standing counsel. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%18.10.2019 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated06.06.2019 issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench(“ITAT”) in ITA No. 666/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2005-06. Theappellant/assessee which is a registered society, claimed to have received adonation of Rs. 95,00,000/- from another non-governmental organizationcalled Locus for Educational and Academic Research Network (“Learn”).The case of the appellant/assessee was picked up for scrutiny. On enquiry,the Chairman of Learn, issued letters dated 21.08.2007 and 06.12.2007denying the claim made by the appellant of it making donations of theaforesaid amount to the appellant.Accordingly, the Assessing Officeradded the said amount of Rs.95,00,000/- to the taxable income of theappellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the CIT(A) succeeded. Against that order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal which remanded back the matter to theAssessing Officer. In the second round, once again the Assessing Officermade the assessment and found that the payment had been received by theassessee from the account of Learn, however, the amount had beendeposited in the account of Learn in cash just a day before the demand draftswere issued in the favour of the appellant. In this background, the AssessingOfficer, did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee andmaintained his earlier order. The appeal preferred by the appellant before theCIT (A) and thereafter, before, the ITAT have met the same fate.Thesubmission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Chairman ofLearn was not even produced for the cross examination despite appellant’srequest.He submits that there are confirmation letter issued by Learn,confirming the payment of the said amount as donation. 2. We have perused the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer uponremand. The view taken by him is premised on fair appreciation of facts andit cannot be said that the view taken by him is not a possible view lookinginto the circumstances of the case. The said finding of fact has been affirmedby the CIT (A) as well as ITAT. It cannot be said that the finding that hasbeen returned against the appellant is de-hors any evidence. If the appellantso minded, it could produce the chairman of Learn. The appellant claimed tohave received the said donation and thus onus lay on him to establish thesame. However, he did not produce the said Chairman as it own witness inthe assessment proceedings. 3. There are consistent and concurrent findings of fact returned by theAssessing Officer; CIT(A) and the ITAT, we are not inclined to interferewith the samein the present appeal, and no question of law arises.Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J OCTOBER 18, 2019Pallavi SANJEEV NARULA, J