TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee concealed any part of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Making a statutory claim u/s.11 of the Act cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars. Also carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] . In the case before the Apex Court, the assessee claimed certain amount as expenditure, however the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and also levied penalty. The Apex Court found that when the assessee claims certain amount as expenditure, merely because the assessee could not furnish the entire details, it cannot be said that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collections from the hospital run by the trust were deposited in the bank account. The Assessing Officer claims that it is anonymous donations. However, the assessee claims that it is the tuition fees collected from the students and the deposit collected from the out-patients from the medical college run by the trust. According to the Ld.AR, only the classification or the source for the deposit is in dispute. The fact that the assessee has disclosed the entire receipts before the Assessing Officer is not in dispute. Since the amount was collected from the out patients and the same was deposited in the bank account and the assessee claims the same as exempted U/s.11 of the Act, it is neither the case of concealment of income nor furnishing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Bank. The assessee has not maintained any proper books of account. Even after conclusion of search on 10.02.2011, the assessee could not produce any books of account to establish the so called collection of deposit from out-patients. The Assessing Officer found that the cash deposited in various bank accounts are anonymous donations and brought the same for taxation for about ₹ 3,29,10,765/-. Since, the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 3,29,10,765/-, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has concealed its income. Therefore, penalty was levied U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.1 Referring to the claim of the assessee, that no penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, if at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever the Assessing Officer claims that it is from anonymous donations. An identical issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Balaji Educational Charitable Public Trust Vs. ACIT in ITA186/Mds/2014 dated 24.07.2015, this Tribunal found that the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the amounts were received but the details were not available. On such circumstances, this Tribunal after referring to the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.MAK Data (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT, found that the explanation given by the assessee was neither false nor bonafide. Accordingly after referring to the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. National Textiles Vs. CIT, 249 ITR 125, found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
