GAYATRI PARIVAR RACHNATMAK TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), VADODARA

Shri Tej Shah, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee explained that the assessee is a trust and is running a Gausala. The books of accounts of the assessee were duly audited and that the donations were received by way of cheque as well as in cash. However, the Auditor had not pointed out any contravention of provision of section 115BBC of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had maintained complete details of all the cash donations, the details of which were filed before the lower authorities. According to the Ld. Counsel, the AO was not Parivar Rachnatmak Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2022-23 - 3 – correct in treating the entire cash deposits as appearing in the bank statement as anonymous donations. He explained that the cash donations were received in very small denominations and such cash donations were only periodically deposited in the bank account. According to the Ld. AR, the AO had treated the cash deposit in the bank account on a particular date as a single cash donation, which was not correct. He explained that each cash deposit in the bank account was accumulation of various small cash donations received by the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee had duly maintained the name and address of all the person from whom the cash donations were received and, therefore, the AO was not correct in treating the same as anonymous donation.

Per contra, Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the details of donations filed and given a finding that PAN, Address and other verifiable details were not appearing in respect of the cash donors. She, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is found that the AO had treated the entire cash deposits appearing in the bank statement of the assessee as anonymous donation and taxed the same u/s.115BBC of the Act. As explained by the assessee, the cash deposits in the bank account comprised aggregate of the various small cash donations and this aspect was not examined by the AO at all. Therefore, the action of the AO in treating the entire cash deposit of Rs.6,20,000/- in the bank account of the assessee as anonymous donation cannot be held as Parivar Rachnatmak Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2022-23 - 4 – correct. The Ld. CIT(A) too had brushed aside the evidences filed by the assessee in respect of individual cash deposits on the ground that PAN, address and other verifiable details were not appearing.

The assessee has filed a list of all the cash donations in the paper book. It is found there from that most of the cash deposits were in very small amounts. A copy of the receipt issued by the assessee has also been brought on record from which it is found that the name of the donor, village/city and mobile number was appearing therein. These evidences were not examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding. Merely because the PAN number of the donor and his complete address was not appearing in the receipts, the donation cannot be held as anonymous, as held by ld. CIT(A). A donor is eligible to claim deduction u/s.80G of the Act in respect of cash donation up to Rs.2,000/- only. As per provision of Section 80G(5) of the Act, in order to claim the deduction, the donation exceeding Rs.2000/- has to be made by any mode other than cash. Therefore, any donation of the amount up to Rs.2,000/- made in cash cannot be considered as anonymous if the name, place of residence of the donor and the mobile number of the donor is appearing in the receipt issued by the assessee. It is only in the donations exceeding Rs.2,000/-, the requirement of mentioning the complete address and PAN (if so mandated by law) would be deemed necessary. Since, this aspect was not examined by the AO, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the cash donations of amount exceeding Rs.2000/- vis- à-vis the complete address of the donor and other details as Parivar Rachnatmak Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2022-23 - 5 – stipulated as per law and, thereafter, apply the provision of Section 115BBC of the Act only in those cases where the complete details are not available and donor can’t be identified.

The assessee has relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Amritsar Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. All India Pingalwara Charitable Society, reported in [2016] 67 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar – Trib.). It is found that the facts involved in that case was totally different as the anonymous donation was received by the assesse in charity boxes. Further, the year involved in that case was Assessment Year 2011-12, where the limit of cash donation was Rs.10,000/-. Since, the facts of that case are totally different, the ratio of the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.