Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1587 - AT - Income TaxCorrectness in granting exemption u/s.10(23C) in respect of the additions made u/s.68 - Held that:- The words used in the section is “any income” received by any trust is exempt. Therefore, the income of the appellant trust assessed by the A.O. by making addition u/s 68 shall also qualify for exemption. This proposition of law is supported by following decisions. See Sri Krishna Educational and Social Trust Vs. ITO (2013 (2) TMI 209 - Madras High Court). Consider 10% of the donations as anonymous and tax the same u/s 115BBC - such direction is not within the powers of the Ld. CIT(A) because it amounts to assessing new source of income - Held that:- Merely writing some names and their addresses, in our opinion, falls short of the legal requirement. Therefore, in our view, the names and addresses taken for verification on test check basis, goes to cast of doubt about the genuineness of the such records, name of donors, donations etc., From that point of view, considering the assessee’s failure to maintain the fool-proof records on the identity of the donors, we are of the opinion that the principle of adhocism adopted by CIT(A) is the only method available in this case for taxing donations as “Anonymous Donations”. As such, the CIT(A) fairly restricted such charge of taxation only to 10% of the entire donations in both the years. All the verifiable identity of the donors, if any will fall in the balance 90% of the entire donors in both the years. From this point of view, we are of the opinion, order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. AO initiated the enquiry into the said donations. He also gathered the adverse evidence against the assessee from a donor named Shri Balu Shivaji Pawar vide letter dated 26.12.2012. Therefore, the counsel’s argument before us regarding the creation of new source by the CIT(A) for the first time in his order of enhancement of the assessment, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the only ground raised by the assessee in both the C.O’s are dismissed.
|