M/S. AKHILA BHARATH SRI VASAVI PENUGONDA TRUST (REGD),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD- 1, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1822/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 November 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order did not clearly specify which donations were considered anonymous due to lack of verifiable addresses. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust received donations, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 5,98,000/- on account of anonymous donations. The assessee contended that full details of all donors, including addresses, were provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly identified anonymous donations without specifying the exact donors and whether the assessee provided sufficient details of donors with addresses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 115BBC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh C.R., CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. G., Standing Counsel
Hearing: 24.09.2019Pronounced: 15.11.2019

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-14, Bangalore dated 30.05.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 5,98,000/- being Anonymous Donations u/s 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although full details of all the donations were filed before the Assessing Officer.

2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer did not furnish which of the donations were being referred to as anonymous from the list of donors supplied to him at the assessment stage and also shown to the CIT (A) during the appeal proceedings.

3. The appellant is a trust having the following main objects and collected donations from various devotees. a. To promote literary activities by establishing educational institutions, Gurukulas, Guru Peeta and to promote the cause of education and scientific thinking. b. To promote social and cultural upliftment and develop harmonious relationship of the society. c. To improve the living conditions of people and to establish hospital, medical centres, yoga centers and free old age homes. d. To launch Nityaannadana scheme to provide free food and stay to needy pilgrims. e. Co-operation and contribution to other trust-to join hands with the trusts/institutes which carry on similar activities and recognised public charitable trusts under the Income Tax Act 1961.

4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in the earlier year the

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →