Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
1. This is an Appeal by the Revenue agitating against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 29.06.2012, partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08 vide order dated 31.12.2010.
2. Explaining the background facts of the case, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee's counsel, that the assessment in the instant case was framed on the basis and the premise that the assessee is not registered u/s.12AA of the Act, and is thus not liable to be recognized as a charitable institution under the Act. 2
The assessee's appeal against the withdrawal of its registration as a charitable institution under the Act stood disposed of by the tribunal (in ITA No.6509/Mum/2007 dated 14.05.2010/PB pgs.5-14) by restoring the matter back to the file of the competent authority, who has since granted registration (vide order dated 19.09.2011 by CIT-III, Thane). It is on this basis that relief had been allowed by the ld. CIT(A), taking us through para 4 of the impugned order, wherein the first appellate authority also noticed the fact that the tribunal has, in view thereof, vide its order dated 20.01.2012 for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07, since held that the registration having been restored, relief u/s.11 could not be denied to the assessee. The Revenue's ground no. 3 impugns the relief allowed to the assessee (at Rs.40.25 lacs) in respect of the total donation received at Rs.41.15 lacs on the basis of the confirmatory letters from the donors clarifying that the donations were toward corpus, and to thus exigible for exemption u/s.11(1)(d), taking us through the relevant part (para 4.1) of the impugned order. The Revenue's stand that the assessee could have furnished the same, i.e., the said letters, to the Special Auditors, fails to appreciate that the special audit was firstly not taken up at the instance of the assessee but of the Revenue and, secondly, was for a different year/s. Further, the assessee is not in appeal against the part disallowance, i.e., for Rs.90,000/-, sustained by the ld. CIT(A); rather, in fact, against the impugned order itself. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not rebut any of the assertions by the ld. AR.
3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The Department having since admittedly allowed registration to the assessee as a charitable institution, i.e., in pursuance to the remand by the tribunal, exemption u/s.11 could not be denied on that basis. The fact that the Revenue has appealed against the order by the tribunal before the hon'ble high court would not operate to stay its operation, so that its seeking to advance its case on that basis is to no avail, even as clarified by the tribunal vide its order in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2008-09 (in ITA No.3777/Mum/2012 dated 30.10.2013/PB pgs.1-4). This would dispose of the Revenue's grounds # 1, 2 and 4, which, therefore, stand dismissed.
4. As regards its ground no. 3, the ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under rule 46A, duly calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer (A.O.), and which stands considered, as apparent from a reading of para 3.1 of his order. The Revenue has neither assailed the said admission under rule 46A nor the finding/s given on merits by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the remand report as well as the evidence furnished by the assessee. There is no reference to the special audit in either the assessment order or even the appellate order. We are, therefore, unable to comprehend the basis of the Revenue's grievance, which is, thus, held as without merit, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's relevant ground. We decide accordingly.
5. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.