SHANTI NIKETAN TRUST,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar for assessment year 2010-11.

Subsequently, the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny.

However, most of the notices were returned un-served. Thereafter, the assessee was asked to produce the donors but the assessee did not produce the donors. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the donations were neither genuine nor voluntary. The AO proceeded to hold the donations as being fictitious and unexplained cash credits and proceeded to add an amount of Rs. 99,50,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act in view the deeming provisions of Section 115 BBC of the Act. In addition, the AO also made in addition of Rs. 45,44,814/- being depreciation said to be claimed by the assessee. The assessee’s appeal before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was also dismissed. Now, the assessee is before the ITAT and has challenged the action of the lower authorities in treating the impugned donations as anonymous donation u/s 115BBC of the Act. The assessee is also challenging the action of the lower authorities in adding back the depreciation of Rs. 45,44,814/- to the income of the assessee.

3.1 With respect to the depreciation, which has been added back by the lower authorities, it was submitted that this action was incorrect as the assessee had not claimed the depreciation amount as application of income and, therefore, the amount of depreciation could not have been added back.

However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Trust (278 ITR 152) observed that the fact that complete list of donors was not filed or that the donors were not produced, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce un-accounted money by way of donation receipts. The Hon’ble Court further observed that as the assessee had disclosed the donation as income, the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied.

5.1 The Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s.

Vaishnavi Educational Society Versus The Deputy CIT Central Circle, Tirupati reported in 2014 (11) TMI 350 - ITAT HYDERABAD held that where the names of the donors along with their addresses were furnished before the Investigation Wing of the department and were also recorded in the books produced by the assessee before the AO, such donations cannot be classified as anonymous donations as per the provisions of section 115BBC(3) of the Act. It was further held that the only requirement u/s. 115BBC (3) is that the names and addresses of the donor should be maintained.

5.2 In the present appeal, the assessee had not only disclosed its donations, but had also submitted a list of donors. The AO proceeded to treat the same as anonymous donations only for the reason that the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were returned un- served and the assessee did not produce the donors when it was called upon to do so. However, since the donations were duly treated as income by the assessee, section 68 could not have been invoked in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Trust (supra). Further, the assessee’s case also does not fall in the mischief of section 115BBC because as per sub section (3), anonymous donations are those donations for which no details of the donors are maintained by the assessee. Thus, it follows that if the details are maintained, the donations cannot be called anonymous donation and provisions of section 115BBC cannot be invoked. In the instant appeal, undisputedly, the details were maintained by the assessee but the addition was made on account of non-furnishing of confirmation letters/non-production of the donors before the AO. We are of the considered view that since the assessee has maintained the details of donors, the donations cannot be called anonymous and provisions of section 115 BBC cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

If provision of section 115BBC cannot be invoked, the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue and direct the AO to delete the addition.

5.3 As far as the second issue regarding adding back of depreciation is concerned, we note that the averment of the Ld. AR is correct that depreciation has not been claimed as an application of income by the assessee and, therefore, there is no question of adding back the same to the income of the assessee. The assessee succeeds on this ground also and while setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue, we direct the AO to delete this addition also.