IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 179/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Credit Guarantee Fund Vs. DCIT(E) – 1(1)

Trust Mumbai.

1^st Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, BKC, Bandra (E)

PAN/GIR No. AAATC2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis & Jay Dharod Revenue by Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.12.2024 passed u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), Mumbai, for the A.Y 2015-16

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring loss, however regular assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act was completed thereby assessing total income of Rs. 93,73,75,000/- by making the addition of the said amount being the contribution from settlers to the corpus of trust by treating the same as voluntary contribution u/s

2(24)(iia) of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal, but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore aggrieved by the said order the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein below:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act without giving opportunity of being heard through video conferencing inspite of specific request made by the appellant trust in written submission, thereby not followed the principles of natural justice.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer [Ld. AO] in taking total income at Rs. NIL as against total loss/ deficit of Rs. (179,15,20,936)/- as per income tax return e-filed without assigning any reasons for doing so, which is wrong and contrary to facts of the case, provisions of the Act and Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") made thereunder.

3(4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of making addition of Rs. 93,73,75,000/- u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act being contribution received from settlors namely, Government of India (GOI) and Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) towards corpus fund in terms of the trust deed and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to facts of the case, provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder.

(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of making addition of Rs. 93,73,75,000/- u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that agreed contribution towards corpus fund received by the appellant trust from GOI and SIDBI (i.e., the settlors) is an obligation of settlors as per the trust deed and hence, cannot be treated or added as income u/s 2(24)(iia)

to the total income of appellant trust.

(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of not granting exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act to corpus contribution received from settlors on the reasoning that DIT(E) has withdrawn the registration u/s 12AA(3) without appreciating the fact that order of cancellation of registration u/s 12A has been set aside by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and Departmental appeal against the said ITAT order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

(d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO failed to appreciate that (i) The contribution received from the settlors in terms of the trust deed