IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  08.03.2011 
.
 Present:        Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, 
 Advocate for the appellant. 
 None for the respondent. 
.
 + ITA No. 468/2011 
.
.
 The respondent is a charitable trust which is established by five NRIs. 
 These NRIs are doctors by profession and are settled in United States. They have 
 been remitting the contribution in US$ every year to this trust.  The sole 
 object of the trust is to set up a super specialist hospital to cater to the 
 needs of poor and downtrodden people.  Land was also allocated to this trust 
 (which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act) in the 
 year 1996 by the Delhi Development Authority.  Construction of the hospital 
 building was taken up which was in progress at the relevant time when the return 
 of the assessment year 2005-06 was filed.  The respondent is duly registered 
 under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act and is also been granted approval 
 under Section 80 G of the Act. 
 In the assessment year in question, the aforesaid five NRIs had remitted 
 funds from USA in US$ equivalent to `2,24,03,547/-.  The 
.
 ITA No. 468/2011 
 page 1 of3 
.
 Assessing Officer, however, did not credit the aforesaid amount and 
 made addition on the ground that identity of these contributors was not 
 established and information of all these trustees, except one  was not 
 furnished. 
 The assessee went in appeal.  In the appeal all requisite documents were 
 filed along with the application for permitting to adduce additional evidence 
 under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.  It is not in dispute that if these 
 documents are accepted they are sufficient to establish the affidavit of the 
 contributors as well as genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of 
 these contributors.  The CIT(A) called for remitting report.  According to the 
 CIT(A), as the Assessing Officer was not responding to the same he passed the 
.
.
 following order allowing the appeal and deleting the aforesaid addition. 
 Additional evidence was adduced and the Assessing Officer had not objected to 
 this appeal. 
 The appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed by the ITAT.  The only 
 ground raised before us in this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal is 
 that the additional evidence was wrongly admitted under Rule 46A of the Act.  We 
 are not convinced with these arguments.  Having regard to the facts taken note 
 of above, the Tribunal has also commented upon this aspect in the following 
 manner:- 
.
 ITA No. 468/2011 
 page 2 of 3 
.
 ?4.       We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on 
 record.  We find merit in the argument of learned counsel CIT(A) has validly 
 exercised his power to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A by sending copy 
 thereof to AO, who instead of commenting on the additional evidence filed, sat 
 on the proceedings.  We also find these evidences are filed before AO on 
 26.12.2007 and the same was not considered and the assessment order was passed 
 on the same day.  In our view, no violation of Rule 46A can be discerned.  In 
 view thereof, we uphold the order of CIT(A).? 
.
 No substantial question of law arises for consideration.  Accordingly, 
 the present appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 MARCH 08, 2011 
 AK 
.
.
.
 ITA No. 468/2011 
 page 3 of 3 
.
.
 14 #