TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT ] even if investment in capital asset has been claimed as application of the income, the assessee is entitled for depreciation as application of the income in subsequent years, prior to insertion of section 11(6) of the Act with effect from assessment year 2015-16. The instant case being of assessment year 2010-11, the assessee is eligible for depreciation as application of the income irrespective of the fact whether investment in fixed assets was claimed as application of the income or not. - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - AO found the donation in dispute as anonymous observing that donor companies are only paper companies - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has maintained name and address and other details, which have been made available to the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jai Maa Savitri Education Society [ 2021 (2) TMI 707 - ITAT DELHI ] entioned above and the finding of the Assessing Officer in remand proceeding, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground No. 2 of the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 169,00,000/- on account of anonyms donation u/s 68. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,21,250/- on account of transport activities ignoring the fact that the expenses has been claimed on estimated basis and assessee has tried to segregate these expenses from the combined income expenditure account of the society without maintaining separate set of books of account as required as per law under section 11(4A) of the I.T. Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,99,984/- on account of surplus from hostel activities. 5. The appellant craves to add or alter any or more ground or grounds of appeal as may be deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as culled out from the order of the lower authorities, are that the assessee is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with effect from 24/10/2005. The assessee society has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is reproduced as under: 19. The facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and remand report of the AO have been considered. The appellant has claimed depreciation of ₹ 76,96,372/-. The AO has disallowed the same being double deduction. The AR has stated that it has claimed depreciation of ₹ 10231372/- in the Income Expenditure Statement and it is not clear from where the AO has taken the figure of amount of disallowance. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society. On going through the facts on the above issue it is noted that the appellant has shown deficit of ₹ 25142579/-, ₹ 7967356/-, ₹ 414868/- for the year ending on31-03- 2010, 31-03-2009 and 31-03-2008 in the Income Expenditure Statements after claiming depreciation. There was no Income Expenditure Statement before this period. Thus the appellant has not claimed any amount as application of income for the investments made in the fixed assets and thus there is no claim of double deduction in this case. The case of the appellant is covered by the ratio of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f double deduction of the Assessing Officer is baseless and without any evidences, hence not justified. Secondly, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, (Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014, order dated 13.12.2017) has held that even if the entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of a capital asset is treated as application of income for charitable purposes u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee is also entitled to depreciation u/s 32. The argument that the grant of depreciation amounts to giving double benefit to the assessee is not acceptable. S. 11(6) which bars depreciation on expenditure applied for charitable purposes is prospective and applies only from AY 2015-16. 4.5 Thus, in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court, even if investment in capital asset has been claimed as application of the income, the assessee is entitled for depreciation as application of the income in subsequent years, prior to insertion of section 11(6) of the Act with effect from assessment year 2015-16. The instant case being of assessment year 2010-11, the assessee is eligible for depreciation as application of the income irrespective of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those details to the Assessing Officer and after obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer and rejoinder from the assessee, he deleted the disallowance observing as under: ..The AO in the remand report vide letter No.2944 dated 20- 03-2017 has stated that she has gone through and verified the evidences filed by the appellant for corpus donation of ₹ 1.69 crore as above. She has not made any adverse comments on the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the appellant in support of the corpus donation. It is provided u/s 115BBC of the Act that anonymous donations means any voluntary contribution in respect of which record having identity (name address of the donor along with other particulars as prescribed) has .not been maintained. In this case, on the factual matrix it is noted that the appellant has maintained complete record giving identity of the donors (name address) along with, particulars of the corpus donations' received - amount, date, mode of payment.^ Under the facts it is noted that the provision of section 115 BBC of i the Act are not attracted in this case. The facts, of this case are covered by the ratio of case laws relied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that in the remand proceeding, the Assessing Officer has accepted the documents to support the identity of the donor. In such circumstances, the very same Assessing Officer is not justified in litigating the issue before the Tribunal. Further, we find that Tribunal in the case of Jai Maa Savitri Education Society (supra) observed that all the donations initially flagged by the Assessing Officer as anonymous donations had been duly verified by way of confirmation, PAN, copies of the ITR, copy of bank statement of donor by the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A), and therefore the Tribunal declined to interfere in the finding of the Learned CIT(A) rejecting claim of anonymous donation of the Assessing Officer. Similarly, in the case of Sunder Deep Education Society (supra) , the Tribunal held that section 115 BBC, which assesses anonymous donation does not apply if the assessee has maintained a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making the contribution . In the instant case also, the assessee has maintained name and address and other details, which have been made available to the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Learned CIT(A). 7.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that Assessing Officer has made addition of ₹ 3,99,984/- as surplus from hostel activity under section 11(4A) of the Act and in view of no separate books of account maintained by the assessee for hostel activity. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was maintaining hostel facility for the college student studying with the assessee, which is mandatory requirement under Rules and Regulation of AICTE (i.e. regulatory authority for technical education). The learned Authorized Representative also submitted that separate books of account were maintained for hostel receipt and expenses and, therefore, Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in working surplus of ₹ 3,99,984/- and making addition for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as under: On consideration of facts of the case it is noted that the AO on page no. 10 of the assessment order has mentioned that it is mandatory to maintain hostel facility as per the rules framed by AICTE. In the audited financial statement as on 31.03.2010 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
