M/S. HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3077/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 September 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to prove that the donations were not anonymous. If the assessee fails to do so, the AO can proceed with the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, received donations of Rs. 30 lacs from two companies. The AO made an addition of this amount, holding that the donors were fictitious and the donations were bogus. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, applying Section 115BBC.

What were the issues?

Whether the donations received by the trust were anonymous and thus taxable under Section 115BBC, or if the assessee could prove the identity of the donors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBC,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-3 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Shri S. Agarwal, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.07.2016Pronounced: 08.09.2016

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.3.2015.

2.

The assessee is a Trust and is imparting education in the fields of engineering, pharmacy, business administration and hotel management.

The issue before me is whether the AO was right in making an addition of donations of Rs.30 lacs u/s 115BBC of the Act. The AO held that there is no doubt that the assessee is not in a position to explain the credit entries of Rs.30 lacs shown in the books of account as donations from M/s Ellora Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and M/s Visit India Voyages Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. He held that bogus entries were shown as donations.

He further held that the donors were not found existing on the addresses given by the assessee. He records that there was no option left for the authorized representative of the assessee, but, to agree for this surrender of Rs.30 lacs with the request that no penal action would be taken against him. On appeal, the first appellate authority held that the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act as he treated the donations as anonymous as the identity of the donors were not proved and held that the provisions of section 115BBC are attracted. Aggrieved, the assessee is before me.

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that section 115BBC is not applicable as the donations received was from two companies and cannot be held as anonymous. He relied on the decision of Delhi Bench ‘G’ of the ITAT in the case Sunder Deep Educational Society vs. Addl.CIT, AY 2007-08, Order dated 6.12.2013.

4.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee could not prove the identity of the donor. He pointed out that both these companies were fictitious companies and, hence, the ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that section 115BBC applies. On a query from the Bench, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO to enable him to demonstrate that the donations are not anonymous donations and that both these companies which have donated Rs.15 lac each are in existence.

5.

After considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to demonstrate that the donations in question are not anonymous donations.

In case the assessee fails to do so, the AO will be at liberty to make the addition in accordance with the law. 3

6.

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

The order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2016.

More judgments on Section 115BBC

All 202 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →