9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri. Rakesh Garg, Advocate ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) mainly on two grounds which are as under:- (1) The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-!, Lucknow has erred in law in deleting the demand of ₹ 5,82,920/- raised by the Assessing Officer. (2) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case deleting the addition of ₹ 16,87,000/- made by the Assessing officer as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of I.T. Act,1961. (3) The Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the Assessing officer has made addition on presumption without conducting proper enquiries and without recording proper satisfaction. 2. Ground No.1 does not emanate either from the order of the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground is devoid of merit and we reject the same. 3. So far as ground No.2 is concerned, it is noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee-trust claimed to have received donation amounting to ₹ 19,10,400/-. All these donations were rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Hans Raj Samarak Society in I.T.A. No. 534 of 2012. It was further contended that the assessee has furnished complete details i.e. name of the donors, address, PAN and amount given as donation. Therefore, in the light of complete details, the genuineness of the donations can be verified, but the Assessing Officer has made addition under section 68 of the Act. 6. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and the documents placed before us in the light of the rival submissions, we find that undisputedly the assessee has furnished complete details of the donors and the copy of the same is available at pages 9 to 12 of the compilation of the assessee, in which the name and address of the donor along with PAN was given. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act while making the addition; whereas provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked in case of donation received by the society, as the receipts was taken into the total income of the assessee. This aspect was examined by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT-1, Kanpur vs. M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act. The Tribunal held that since more than 75 per cent, of the donations received by the assessee was spent for charitable purposes, the addition was not justified. On appeal to the High Court : Held, dismissing the appeal, that to obtain benefit of the exemption under section 11 of the Act, the assessee was required to show that the donation was voluntary. In the .present case, the assessee had not only disclosed its donations, but had also submitted a list of donors. The fact that the complete list of donors had not been filed or that the donors had not been produced did not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee had tried to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts, This was shown in the facts of the case, where admittedly 75% of the donations were applied for charitable purposes. Section 68 of the Act had no application to the facts of the case because the assessee had in fact disclosed the donations of ₹ 18,24,200/- as its income and it could not be disputed that all receipts, other than corpus donations would be income in the hands of the assessee. There was thus full disclosure of income by the assessee and also application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be added again. Since the facts of receipt of these amounts having been declared as income/receipt by the assessee are not in dispute, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in respect of these amounts. This disposes of grounds of Revenue relating to additions of ₹ 1,13,00,038/-, ₹ 1,00,000/-, ₹ 8,35,000/- and ₹ 46,71,371/-. 6.1 The view taken by the Tribunal was confirmed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Income-tax Appeal No.267/2009. Copy of the judgment is placed on record. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view in similar set of facts, we find no reason to take a contrary view in these appeals. Moreover, the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue in the light of various judicial pronouncements and we find no infirmity therein. We, therefore, confirm his order in this regard. 7. During the course of hearing, an argument was also raised that if the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked, disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 115BBC of the Act, as the details of the donors are not available. This aspect was also examined by the Tribunal in the aforesaid c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. 10.1 As per sub section (3), unanimous donation are those donations for which no details of donors are maintained by the assessee. If the details are maintained, the donations cannot be called unanimous donation and provisions of section 115BBC cannot be invoked. In the instant case, undisputedly, the details were maintained by the assessee but the addition was made on account of non furnishing the confirmation letters. We are of the considered view that only those donations can be called unanimous for which details are not maintained. If it is properly maintained, it cannot be called unanimous donation. Since the assessee has maintained the details of donors, the donations cannot be called unanimous donation and provision of section 115BBC cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances of the case. If provision of section 115BBC cannot be invoked, the addition made u/s 68 are to be deleted in the light of the order of the Tribunal in assessee s case for assessment year 2005-06 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in which under the identical facts, the additions made by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
