9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of donations, treating it as genuine and ignoring the fact that there is frequent change in the name of the company and the assessee was not able to produce correct PAN and the detail of the Assessing Officer. The frequent change in the name of the company also clearly establishes the fact that the transactions were not genuine. 2. While accepting the donation a genuine Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that huge donation of rupees 10 lacs to 20 lacs was shown to be received from each company whose total income declared is very meager. The genuineness of such a huge donation from a meager income of donors is beyond human probability as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumti Dayal Vs. CIT(1955) 125 CTR 124 and CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 210 CTR 20. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the donations as genuine merely on the basis of bank entries ignoring the fact that the donors were having meager income as shown in their trading account submitted by the assessee by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Kushal Prashad Manahar Vs. CIT (2010) 236 CTR 193. 4. Ld. CIT(A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd. Rs.2,00,000/- m) Natasha Enterprises. Rs.3,00,000/- n) New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,00,000/- o) Van Guard Jewels Ltd. Rs.2,00,000/- p) Lexus Infotech Ltd. Rs.2,00,000/- q) Kunal James. Rs.2,00,000/- r) Kare Electronics Development Ltd. Rs.20,00,000/- s) Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.80,00,000/- 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered with Registrar of Societies of Utter Pradesh. The society has been granted registration u/s 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 and is also enjoying exemption u/s 80G of the Act. The society is engaged in the running of Engineering and Pharmaceutical college in Village, Parsona, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad under the name and style of Shree Ganpati Institute of Technology. The return of income was filed on 31.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was a difference amounting to ₹ 24,03,636/- between amount of investment declared by assessee in its books and that of valuation done by Valuation Officer. Out of this ₹ 5,18,547/- belonged to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee was confronted and was called upon to explain the difference. The assessee replied to the queries of Assessing Officer. On the basis of submissions, the Assessing Officer arrived at the conclusion that the point of difference explained by the assessee cannot be totally ignored and made an addition of ₹ 2,59,274/- being 50% of ₹ 5,18,547/- on account of difference in the estimation of investment in construction in assessment year 2007-08. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and made the following submissions:- a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has not correctly computed the income chargeable to tax in accordance with provisions of section 11 12 of the Act. b) That Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of ₹ 80 lakhs on the alleged grounds of un-explained deposit without proper appreciation of facts or opportunity to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged donors itself was very less and from the figure of profit earned by these companies it cannot be said that these entities were ever able to give donation to this extent. He further argued that Ld CIT(A) has taken a very generic view and has discussed only three cases to allow full benefit of appeal made by the assessee. 11. In respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained investment, the Ld AR relied upon the order of Assessing Officer. 12. On the other hand, the Ld AR argued that assessment done by the Assessing Officer is against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 . He argued that society is a registered society u/s 12AA of the Act and is eligible for benefit u/s 11 of the Act. He invited our attention to paper book page 1 wherein the computation of total income was placed. He submitted that as per provisions of section 11, the society had incurred a deficit of ₹ 2,15,63,393/- even after considering the donation as income of the society. In respect of Ld Dr s objection that only three parties were discussed, the Ld AR submitted that out of ₹ 80 lakhs, ₹ 40 lakhs were received from two parties which was part of three partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
