TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition u/s 68 - assessee submitted that the entire amount has been offered to tax and has been included in voluntary donation - As the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee would not help as he could not controvert the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld.AR of the assessee had offered the amount for taxation. Therefore, looking to the facts of the present case, the assessee could not rebut the findings of AO. Coupled with the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld.AR of the assessee had offered the impugned amount for taxation thus, grounds are devoid of merit. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 raised by the assessee in this appeal are hence, dismissed. - ITA No. 8173/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R of the Appellant had agreed to offer the transactions of Rs.450000 and Rs.11,250 as Income in Assessment Proceedings. 8. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in holding the finding of Rs 11,250 being unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 9. That the addition has been made and sustained in violation of principles of natural justice -without giving an opportunity to cross examine the alleged entry operators . 10. That without prejudice to the above grounds the appellant society being registered under section 12A of the Act ought to be allowed application of 15% on the addition made of Rs 4,61,250 in terms of section 11 of the Act. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against the legality of reopening of the assessment. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the reasons for re-opening the assessment is based upon borrowed satisfaction. He contended that there is no mention by the assessee as to why the donation received by the assessee is accommodation entries and the assessee beneficiary of same. Further, it was contended that the sanction of Ld. Commissioner was based upon incorrect facts. He therefore, submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.1 The learned Assessing officer has alleged that the appellant society has channelized it's undisclosed income by availing accommodation entries of Rs.4,50,000 through entry operator Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal and also paid commission of Rs.11,250. The basis of this allegation it seems is the investigation done by Investigation wing and the post search statements made by sh. Pradeep Jindal. 3.2 It is submitted: 1. That the entire amount of Rs.450,000 has already been offered for tax since the amount has been included in voluntary donations of Rs.7,00,000 ( refer page 10-14). The copies of the receipts are placed at page no ..... of the paper book. Once it is demonstrated that Rs.4,50,000 have already been offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the learned CIT - A is normal income already offered by the trust, these fact has never been controverted by the learned departmental representative, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, we uphold the decision of the learned CIT-A that the addition u/s 68 of the above donation cannot be made. 2. The amount of donation has been received by account payee cheques. Complete details of donees together with their address is on record. None of them were called by the learned Assessing officer during assessment. The entire assessment is based upon the report prepared by the Investigation wing and the Learned Assessing officer has not been brought any material or evidence on record to justify his allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged commission of 2% therefore on Rs.450,000 the amount works out to Rs.11,250. This addition is based on presumption and conjectures and without any basis. The learned Assessing officer has brought no evidence on record to justify that the appellant has incurred this expenditure in terms of section 69C. The statement of the entry operator cannot be evidence unless the appellant had a chance to cross examine. In absence of any positive evidence and the failure to give the opportunity to cross examine the addition cannot be sustained. In view of the above submissions appeal may please be allowed. 12. Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He also reiterated the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
