STAGE DOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI

The assessee has raised 6 substantive grounds of appeal. However, the sole issue argued before us pertains to the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of corpus donation received and claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust created on 10.02.1975 and registered u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee electronically filed its Return of Income on 18.03.2017 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as corpus donation from various persons. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has neither produced the director of corpus donor nor filed confirmation of corpus donation received as well as the bank statement of the donor. The Assessing Officer finally concluded that the amount of Rs 1,50,00,000/- received from the eight parties are accommodation entries from paper concern/person and added the same as income of the society u/s 68 of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. 6. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us. 7. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee. Even today, when the case was called out for hearing, none was present. As several opportunities were given to the assessee which was not availed, we decided to proceed ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of the ld DR. So we heard the ld. DR at length and perused the materials on record. 8. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and read the relevant part of the assessment order. It is the say of the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT(A) sustained the addition u/s 68 as under: "From a reading of the assessment order and the facts placed in the record by the AO, it is seen that in the cases of M/s. Kanhiya Impex Ltd, M/s Shulini Reality Pvt Ltd, M/s Preeti Pooja Tex Fab Pvt Ltd and Deskjet Computer Solution, the AO had a finding that assessee was taking

From a perusal of the order of the Id. CIT(A) extracted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We find no lacuna in the well- reasoned findings of the ld. CIT(A). We find from the assessment order that the assessee, as evidence to establish identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness, submitted a confirmation of some of the parties and their PAN and that the transaction was done through Bank.

We also note that summon to the managing trustee of the society remained unanswered to explain its position. Further, the assessee also failed to produce the principal officer of the concerns/persons who has given donation. We are therefore of the opinion that the primary onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the person from whom the monies were taken and the genuineness of the transaction, was not discharged by the assessee. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1029/DEL/2022 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2025. [MADHUMITA ROY]