TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, was 25%. To obtain the benefit of the exemption u/s 11 assessee is required to show that the donations were voluntary. In the present case, the assessee had only disclosed its donation, but failed to submit a list of donors. Complete list of donors was not filed or that 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. Section 68 have no application to the facts of the case if the assessee furnishes the name and address of the donors to the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the assessee has received ₹ 33.80lakh in three assessment years as stated in the earlier paragraph that out of this, ₹ 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of ₹ 8,80,000 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, though it was voluntary donation received by the assessee-trust towards corpus fund. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee has received following donations in various assessment years totaling to ₹ 33,80,000 :- Sl. No. Name of the Trustees 2005-06 (FY) 2006-07 (FY) 2007-08 (FV) Total 1. E.Abdurahim 6,00,000 4,90,000 120,20,000 21,10,000 2. P.Laila 6,00,000 -- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The tabulation of the above would show that the contributions made by the Trustees Trustees for each of the above financial years are i.e., for F.Y.2005-2006 ₹ 17,00,000, for F.Y.2006-2007 ₹ 4,90,000, and for F.Y. 2007-2008 ₹ 11,90,000, totaling to ₹ 33,80,000. In the assessment order, the A.O. proceeded on the basis that out of ₹ 33.8O lakh, the source was explained by the assessee for ₹ 25 lakh and, therefore, the balance of ₹ 8.80 lakh as on 31.3.2008 is assessed as income of the Trust for that year. The break-up of the corpus donations made by the Trustees as furnished above would show that the contribution made during the financial year 2007-2008 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that the A.O. vide para 3 of the asst. order now impugned in the present appeal, has considered the cumulative total of the corpus donations received upto 31.3.2008 and held that the source for ₹ 25 lakh alone out of the total corpus fund of ₹ 33.80 lakh as on 31.3.2008 was explained. There is no justification to consider the cumulative total for this purpose. In the notice dated 7.12.2011, the A.O. considered a sum of ₹ 25 lakh received by Smt. P. Laila as available source to the credit of the four Trustees on a consolidated basis and treated the balance as unexplained. This estimate is contrary to the statutory provision and the settled principles. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble High Court of Kerala in (2012) 348 ITR 69 (Ker.) : CIT Vs. St. Mary's Malankara Seminary is also relevant. It was held there in that the term Education would enjoy wide connotation covering all kinds of coaching and training carried on in a systematic manner leading to personality development of an individual. It was held that religious teaching in the seminary is an education and seminary is an educational institution entitled for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Donations for corpus funds are exempted u/s.11 of the Act. In a case where exemption is claimed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad), the entire receipts would be exempted if the aggregate of annual receipts is not more than ₹ 100 lakh. Where the annual receipts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts. In my opinion, section 68 of the I.T.Act have no application to the facts of the case if the assessee furnishes the name and address of the donors to the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the assessee has received ₹ 33.80lakh in three assessment years as stated in the earlier paragraph that out of this, ₹ 11.90 lakh was relating to assessment year 2008- 2009. The Assessing Officer, out of this amount, considered ₹ 8.80 lakh as unaccounted income of the assessee. The assessee stated before me that the said sum of ₹ 11.90 lakh was received by the assessee from the following two persons, i.e., (i) Sri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
