Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 959 - ITAT CHENNAIExemption u/s 11 - Anonymous donation - assessee accommodating such donations received as fees - HELD THAT:- In this case, the seized material for the assessment year 2013-14 gives an impression that the amount was collected from the students. However, it is not known that such donations were collected from students or any other party who are related to the students at the time of admission. These facts were not examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A). Even though there was no prohibition for receiving voluntary donations from the general public, collecting capitation fee for admission of the students in any educational institution is prohibited and it is a punishable offence under the State Enactment. The assessee claims that necessary materials were filed before the Assessing Officer to establish the identity of the donors and also the confirmation letters. In this situation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this matter needs to be re-examined by the AO. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee including voluntary donations, anonymous donations and salary advance said to be received from the staff, etc., are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reexamine the matter and bring on record the nexus between the donations and the donors in respect of each donation and there after decide the issue afresh Penalty U/s.271(1)(c) - Unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- Assessee has disclosed the entire receipt of donations. However the Assessing Officer found that it is not a voluntary donation but anonymous donation. The fact that the assessee has disclosed the entire donation and claimed exemption U/s.11 of the Act is not in dispute. When the assessee has disclosed the entire receipt and the expenditure and claimed the same as exempted U/s.11 of the Act, merely because the assessee could not furnish the details of the persons from whom the donations was received, cannot be a reason for concluding that the assessee concealed any part of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Making a statutory claim U/s.11 of the Act cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] assessee claimed certain amount as expenditure, however the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and also levied penalty. The Apex Court found that when the assessee claims certain amount as expenditure, merely because the assessee could not furnish the entire details, it cannot be said that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars - mere claim of exemption U/s.11 of the Act, in respect of the so called donations received by the assessee cannot be a reason for levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly the same is set aside and the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|