TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were pointed out by the assessee before the lower authorities, which have not been dealt with by either the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT (Appeals). Further, cross examination of these persons was specifically asked by the assessee, which was not provided to it. In this view, the addition even on these accounts cannot be made. The addition on account of corpus donation in the present case, even if sustained, would go to increase the income of the assessee. Even if the corpus donation, which is held to be bogus, amounting to ₹ 1 crore, will, at best go to increase the income of the assessee. The receipts will become ₹ 8,16,18,794/- and the application being ₹ 21,51,18,322/-, is in any case more than 85% of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven persons denied having given any donation to the assessee. The assessee made a reply and objected to the addition proposed under section 68 of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that such an addition on the basis of only seven person out of 78 persons involved is devoid of any merits. Further, no opportunity to cross examine the said seven persons was given to the assessee. The Assessing Officer again asked the assessee to produce 14 persons out of which four were amongst the earlier list for cross examination. The persons who had earlier came to the Assessing Officer, preferred not to appear again before him. Eight other persons accepted to the fact that they had given donations to the assessee trust, while two others denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to point out any defect in the books related to expenditure of the trust. After analyzing the submission of the assessee and relying on certain judicial pronouncements, the learned CIT (Appeals) found that the assessee has not proved satisfactorily the creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the transaction. In this manner, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee has come up in appeal before us, raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- received under Corpus Fund Donation u/s 68 of Income Tax Act. (pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was ₹ 1425.12 lacs. The repayment of term loan was in addition to this. Hence, the assessee had spent 304% of revenue receipts for the purpose of the trust against the prescribed 85%. The total donation received during the year was 352.46 lacs. Even if that is considered to be part of total receipts, even then the expenditure incurred was more than 200% of gross receipts. In this view, a prayer was made to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The learned D.R. relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as that of the learned CIT (Appeals). 8. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stretching the power of investigation given to the Assessing Officer, too far. The Assessing Officer cannot make addition under section 68 of the Act in such a casual manner. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs P.K.Noorjahan 237 ITR 570(SC) that the addition cannot be made by the Assessing Officer just for the sake of making addition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the donation received from the persons who were not called and the persons who were called and accepted the fact of giving donation, cannot be said to be not genuine. As regards the persons who had come and denied before the Assessing Officer the fact of giving donation, we observe that certain fallacies were pointed out by the assessee before the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
