TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. have erred in observing that Section 11, 12 and 12A would be of no relevance to the appellant in the present case. 5. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fat that the appellant has discharged its burden of proof as required under the law and the additions are totally illegal, bad in law and based on guesswork and surmises and conjectures. 6. That without prejudice the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a registered education society u/s 12A and the income of the same is exempt u/s 11 as it fulfill all the conditions of the said section. 7. That the various observations made by the A.O. and CIT(A) against the appellant are illegal, bad in law and contrary to facts, evidence and material on record. 8. That the evidence and explanation given by the appellant and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judiciously interpreted. 9. That the additions have been made on basis of mere surmises and conjectures and guesswork and contrary to facts and evidence on record and cannot be justified by any material on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and in the result, the above stated additions u/s 68 of the Act have been made. This action of the A.O. was questioned b the assessee before Ld. CIT but it has not succeeded. 4. While reiterating the submissions before the authorities below, the Ld. A.R. pointed out that while accepting the donations, the assessee has taken the details of the donors including their names, addresses, PAN, their copies of ITR containing details of their respective A.O.s etc. The assessee had also taken the declaration form of donors that the amount being paid is on account of donations. The assessee had also kept copies of cheques/pay orders /DDs by which the donations were paid. All the donations have bee paid through banking channel. In response to the notice u/s 137(6)/131 of the Act issued to the donors, some of them also furnished bank statements, account opening forms, other transactions details filed by the respective bankers and donors as well as their confirmations. The Ld. A.R. submitted that so far as the source of these donations at the end of the donors is concerned, it is beyond the reach of the assessee to explain the same. The assessee could at the most has got their A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned unserved. Copies of the income tax returns were pertaining to other than relevant previous years. The bank accounts furnished were incomplete and in most of the cases, the returned income as per the return of income were below ₹ 2 lacs. He drew our attention to the definition of the income provided u/s 2(24) of the I. T. Act, 1961 with the submission that voluntary contribution is required to be made. He also referred to section 12(1) of the Act wherein also voluntary contribution is required to be made. He submitted that corpus donations form part of the voluntary contribution and donation is always given with direction of its use in a particular way. He submitted that further this non verifiable income is to be taxed u/s 56 of the Act. 6. In rejoinder, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the details of donations given with confirmation of the donors were filed before the A.O. but the A.O. did not make sincere effort for its verification. 7. Having gone through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. A.R., we find that in the case of DIT(E) Vs Keshav Social Charitable Foundation (supra), before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the charitable institution made disclosure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report of the Investigation Wing. He accordingly subjected the said donation receipts for charge of tax at maximum marginal rate. Ld CIT(A) deleted the same. The tribunal upheld the first appellate order on the issue with this finding that to obtain benefit of exemption u/s 11, the assessee is required to show that the donations were voluntary. It was observed that the assessee had not only disclosed the donations but had also submitted list of donors. It was held that the fact that complete list of donors were not filed and the donors were not produced, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (supra) and declined to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. 10. In view of the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court when we examined the orders of authorities below, we do not find justification in the action in sustaining the addition of ₹ 140 lacs u/s 68 of the Act only because some of the don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
