9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepted by the A.O. in the original assessment order, therefore, the provisions of Section 115BBC would not be applicable to the facts of the case. CIT(A) further noted that details of the names and addresses of the donors has not been proved to be wrong or those persons have not donated to the assessee-trust. He, therefore, held that for these reasons also the donation received by the assessee-trust cannot be considered to be anonymous donation by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 115BBC of the I.T. Act, 1961. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. And Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M The above cross-appeals are preferred by the Revenue and Assessee-Trust against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi, dated 24.03.2015 in Appeal No.400/ 13-14/1551 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 in Appeal No.400/13- 14/1551 granted substantial relief to the Assessee-Trust. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue as well as Assessee-Trust are now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Grounds raised by the Revenue in it s appeal [ITA.No.4775/Del./2015 A.Y. 2008-2009] are as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the additions of Rs.1,91,00,000/- on account of unverifiable donation and Rs.10,59,83,785/- on account of unverifiable/ bogus contribution to corpus fund made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 and section 115 BBC of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,02,70,000/- made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 and section 115 BBC of the Act on account of donations for which creditworthiness/genuineness was not proved. 3. The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/ all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition noted that despite the direction of Ld. CIT in the order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 wherein the A.O. was directed to make de-novo assessment after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. did not make any further enquiry or investigation in respect of the donations on the pretext that A.O. had no power of reviewing the order passed previously and his power was only restricted to the extent of rectifying the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. This finding of the A.O. did not find favour with the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that if a person receives donation and maintains the record of identity and addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the donor was incorrectly maintained by the assessee-trust, the onus of maintaining the identity of the donor was not fulfilled by the assessee-trust. He was of the view that when the donor has denied to have made donations means that the details about the receipt of donation was not correctly maintained by the assessee-trust and thus, the anonymous donation of Rs.1.46 crores allegedly received from M/s. Adivasi Mahila Vikas Samiti was treated as anonymous donation and taxable under section 115BBC of the I.T. Act, 1961 and no deduction of the same was held to be allowable on account of application of income under section 13(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the assessee-trust. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee-Trust is now in appeal before us. 15. Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) and pointed to the copy of the letter received from M/s. Adivasi Mahila Vikas Samiti which is placed at page number 24M of the paper book wherein it has been confirmed by the donor that Rs.51 lakhs was given to the assessee-trust vide pay order. He also pointed to the other donations made by the dono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
