9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 377 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - proof of donation received - Held that - In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee received a donation of ₹ 15,00,000/- from M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan, Meerut vide cheque no. 084387 drawn on the Nainital Bank Ltd., Ghaziabad. The said cheque was signed by the Secretary of the Sansthan who also gave a confirmation letter. The said fact is evident from page no. 45 of the assessee s paper book which is the copy of the cross examination on oath of Sh. Madan Giri who confirmed vide giving answer to question no. 3 that the donation was given to the assessee. It is also noticed that the assessee had shown the donation in its books of account. The said donation was utilized for construction of the building to be used for running of dental college setup in Village Dasna, Masuri to impart dental education. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S UTTARNCHAL WELFARE SOCIETY 2013 (9) TMI 965 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Thus the assessee not only disclosed its donation but also produced confirmation from the Secretary of the trust who has given the donation through cheque. The said donation was utilized for charitable activities. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was no justified and accordingly the same is deleted. - decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Addition of ?15,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 115BBC/68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay: The appeal was delayed due to the counsel's failure to hand over the order to the assessee. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that the delay was not intentional but occurred due to the counsel's mistake. The Tribunal considered the affidavit of the counsel, who admitted to the delay due to his busy schedule. The Tribunal referred to the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT, where it was held that no one should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless there was deliberate and intentional delay. The Tribunal found the explanation plausible and condoned the delay, admitting the appeal. Addition of ?15,00,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit: The assessee, an educational society, received a donation of ?15,00,000/- from M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this donation as unexplained cash credit under Section 115BBC/68, citing discrepancies and statements from the donor's secretary, who denied giving the donation and alleged misuse of the society's account for money laundering. The AO's inquiry revealed that the funds were transferred through dubious transactions involving cash deposits and transfers among various entities. The assessee argued that the donation was genuine, supported by confirmation letters and the donor's signatures on cheques. The assessee also contended that the donation was utilized for charitable purposes. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the donor's statements and the suspicious nature of the transactions. Upon appeal, the Tribunal considered the facts, including the donor's confirmation and the utilization of the donation for charitable activities. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT Vs Uttranchal Welfare Society, where it was held that if donations are fully disclosed and utilized for charitable purposes, exemptions cannot be denied. Similarly, in DIT(E) Vs Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation, it was held that non-production of donors does not necessarily imply unaccounted money if the donations are applied for charitable purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had disclosed the donation, provided confirmation, and utilized the funds for charitable activities. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal deleted the addition, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and deleted the addition of ?15,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, holding that the donation was genuine and utilized for charitable purposes. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
