OJAS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s ground Nos. 1 to 3, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed it’s repair & maintenance etc. to the tune of 30% thereof, in the course of assessment framed

Learned counsel could hardly dispute that the assessee could not plead and prove it’s impugned claim to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities. The fact however remains that there would be no dispute that the CIT(A)/NFAC has already accepted the assessee’s 85% of the impugned claim. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum disallowance @ 5% would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive ground is partly accepted to the extent of 10% in very terms.

Next comes section 115BBC addition of Rs.9,99,999/- made in both the learned lower authorities’ respective orders. A perusal of the case file indicates that the impugned sum had come in the assessee’s hands via banking channel only; and, therefore, the same could hardly be treated as an anonymous donation u/s 115BBC of the Act as even the Revenue’s authorities are fairly admitting that it was transferred from the account of Mr. Davinder Singh. That being the case, the impugned addition is hereby deleted in very terms.