ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM ITA No. 223/NAG/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The ACIT, Vs. M/s. SipnaShikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (EXEMPTION), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati PAN No.:AACTS 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue by :ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR) Assessee by: ShriHimeshDemble (CA) Date of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-4, Nagpur dated 27/03/2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein the Department has raised the following grounds of appeal.

‘’1. Whether ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts that submission made by the donors and field enquiries revealed that the assessee has submitted bogus names of donors. 2. Whether ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts that proper opportunity for submission of confirmation and cross examination of donors were given to assessee. 3. Whether ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the acceptance of the donation of Rs.4,04,04,975/- by

2 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI assessee trust as voluntary and by person without verifiable identity and address. 4. Whether ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the acceptance of the donation of Rs.4,04,04,975/- by assessee trust as voluntary and genuine without carrying out any verifications of name and identity8 of the donors and voluntary nature of donations. 2.1 Apropos ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the assessment order of the AO are as under:-

‘’The assessee had filed the return of income on 28.03.20 14 declaring the total income at Nil, after claiming exemption u/s 11 of Income Tax Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 25.09.2014 was issued and served to the assessee. Subsequently, the case was transferred as per the present jurisdiction. Due to change of incumbent, the fresh notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act dt 06.07.20 15 was issued to the assessee along with detailed questionnaire. In response to the statutory notices, Mr. Sanjay Khandekar, CA and Mr. Vijay Ramani, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee with the Letter of authority and furnished the requisite details. The case was discussed with them. The assessec is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. The assessee is a Trust created for the purpose of spreading Education. The assessee trust is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act. The main sources of its receipts are Bank interest, Voluntary contributions, Grants, fees from students etc. The assessee has filed consolidated income and expenditure account and as per this account, the assessee claimed to have applied gross receipts towards its objects. During theassessment proceedings, the AR produced Auditor's report in Form No. 10B, details of theincome received and application thereof. He explained his claim about non taxability of thereceipts with documents in support thereof. The Case is discussed on the following issue. 1) Anonymous Donation : During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted Balance Sheet for the year ending on 31.03.2013, Income and Expenditure a/c etc. On perusal of balance sheet, it was observed that assessee trust had received corpus donation at Rs. 4,43,87,395/- andaddition was made to the Building fund. In order to verify the genuineness of donations,details of donors were called for such as

3 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI names, complete address, PAN (if any) along withdonation receipts, bank passbook etc. In this regard, the assessee had produced the list of 9360 individual donors, who had given donations in cash ranging from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-. The assessee has claimed that these donations were received as corpus donations with specific purpose for making the building of Educational Institution. The donation receipts were produced for verification which were maintained in group of500 such as (001 to 500, 501 to 1000, 1001 to 1500 and so on ….). From the donationreceipts, it is seen that donations were collected on account of Building fund, mentioningname of donors and amount of donation given. There was no mention of postal addresses ofdonors PAN (if an r) and si:nature of donors. It appears that these donors were not given the acknowledgment of donation receipts, for the donations given. In this regard, the assessee conveyed that the data such as name with their addresseswere maintained differently and not mentioned in donation receipt. The list of donors with their respective addresses was submitted, subsequently. It is observed that the addresses of donors mentioned in the aforesaid list were not complete postal addresses. The donation amount was received in cash from 9360 individual donors, total amounting to Rs. 4,43,87,395/-, It is quite obvious that entire list of donors is not verifiable. So also, it is neither practical nor feasible to verify each and every donation. As such, the verification is carried out on test check basis. Thus, to verify the genuineness of donation, 25 letters dt. 08.02.2016 along withsummons u/s 131 were issued to the individual donors. Out of 25 individuals, 7 letters were returned back with the remark from postal department as "Insufficient address’’ 12 donors have not confirmed the donation given to the assessee trusts 2 donors replied through letter correspondent that they had not given any donation toassessee trust. S.N. Name Amount 1. AlkaNandkishoeUbhale 3500 2. SmitaPratapChoudhary 3500 3 donors visited the office and statement u/s 131 was recorded on oath that they hadnot given any donation to the assessee trust. S.N. Name Amount 1. Ajay ShreshraojiDarokar 4500 2. DnyaneshwarShreshssraojiBhore 7500 3. DhirajVinaykraoKene 4500 The aforesaid facts were conveyed to the assessee and opportunity to cross verificationwas granted. Mr. Narayan Demble, CA, Representative of assessee trust had cross examined the donor "Ajay SheshraojiDarokar" on 18.03.2016. At the time of cross

4 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI examination, the donor (Ajay SheshraojiDarokar) had denied that he had given any donation to the assessee trust. Further, enquiry was made with Mr. Ajay SheshraojiDarokar on the issue of donation. Therelevant extract of his reply is reproduced as under: "I want to say something regarding the donation Mr. Deshmukh resides in myvillage came to my place along with professor who is working in Sipna Institute of Engg. & Tech. He try to convince regarding payment made to Sipna as a donation. MrDeshmukh appears has to give donation to sipna as their wards takingeducation in Sipna College. I was very much firm on my stand that no donation have been given by me during the period under consideration to Sipna educationTrust as I don't know the Sipna Education Trust." It is pertinent to note, here, that assessee was trying to pressurize the donors to provide the information in their favour. Now, to intensify the investigation to further level, team of ward Inspectors was deputed to gather the factual data from field visit. The team of ward Inspectors visited the field on 17.03.2016 and 22.03.2016. The ward Inspectors had visited various donors on the addressesprovided by assessee trust. The team had visited 52 individuals. During the enquiry, the donors had denied in the statements that they had given any donations to the assessee trust. The list of donors to whom, ward Inspectors visited during the field visit is annexed as A,B&C.as part of assessment order. As per the field data collected, in 5 cases, the team has observed the fact that the donors, whose name appeared in donor's list, were not alive. They actually died prior to F.Y.2012-13 and had not made any donation to assessee trust.

S.N. Name Amount Date of Death 1. JanardhanGhatare 1500 23-06-2005 2. AbaraoNagoraoKadu 4500 22-12-2015 3. ShantaSakharamAkode 7000 15-07-2010 4. ManojKanhaiyalalGundiyal 6000 16-10-2005 (Arora) 5. HaribhanBhimraojiWankhede 5000 21-07-2007

The team of Inspectors has gathered the relevant evidences such as photo of deceased persons, death certificates etc. The team of Inspectors submitted their point wise report,narrating the observation made during field visit, which is place on record. On perusal of Inspector's report, some of real facts emerge which are consolidated as follows. i) Some of the donors were not traceable on the address given by the assessee. It has been found that the asses see had not provided complete and correct address of all donors.

5 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI ii) The donors, mentioned in the list, had their children studied in the colleges run by theassessee trust, prior to 3-4 years. They had not paid any donation to assessee trustduring the period under consideration. The data such as names and addresses available with assessee trust were clearly misused. iiii) In few submission, the donors replied that they were students studied in differentcolleges. They were having no source of income, for the period under consideration.They do not recognize the assessee trust, nor advanced any donation either. iv) Some farmers have denied of having given any donation to assessee trust. These farmers were having income just sufficient to fulfill their daily needs. v) In some cases, the donors had expired prior to F.Y. 2012-13 (The death certificatewith their photos were gathered by the ward Inspector during the field enquiry andplaced on record) vi) During the course of enquiry, it came to the notice that the trustees/members of the trust have already informed some of the people that if somebody from Income Tax Department makes enquiries about the payment of donation to the trust, they mayplease accept of having paid the donations to the trust. vii) During the course of enquiry, the difficulties faced by us for service of letters was that — the address of the donors were incomplete, and if address was traced out, the person staying there denies to receive the letter as the middle name of the person wasincorrect. No landmark for the address was given With the exercise of field visits and result thereon, the genuineness of donors raiseddoubts. However, the assessee was granted opportunity to produce the donors for verification and/or submit the confirmation letters with valid Identity proof. The assessee availed the opportunity produced 44 individual in office on 29.02.2016, with Identity proof. The statement u/s 131 was recorded of 6 individuals. The assessee, further, submitted confirmation letters from 455 individual donors(inclusive of 44 donors), out of which PAN was provided in 337 cases. Remaining 118 donors, neither PAN nor any Identity proof was provided. In absence of any documentary evidence to verify the information such as full name of donor with his address, his signature etc, the confirmation letter does not carry material value. It is just a self declared document, mentioning name of donor with amount of donation. In absence of valid proof, thegenuineness of confirmation letter is not accepted. The only requirement u/s 1 15BBC of Income Tax Act is that the names and address of the donors are to be recorded. Therefore, the burden is on the assessee to explain that the correct record of Identity, indicating names and address of the donors are maintained. Merely, filing list of donors containing names and address / incomplete address does not satisfy the condition laid down in sec 1 15BBC(3) of Income Tax Act. The donation is treated as genuine if it is received from the known persons,

6 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI when the identity of the donors is established with valid proof. In some cases, the assessee had proved the identity, indicating names and address of the donors. Therefore, confirmation letters of 337 individual donors, amounting to total donation at Rs. 15,99,550/- is accepted as genuine donation and the assessee had granted to relief to that extend. Therefore, it is concluded that assessee has not maintained the data such as name and their address, PAN (if any) of the individual donors to the extent of donation of Rs. 4,27,87,845/-, as required. The assessee failed to submit the data of all the donors with their complete address, the said amount is treated as "anonymous donation" u/s 1 15BBC of I.T.Act. To appreciate the issue, the relevant section is reproduced as under: Sec 115BBC To appreciate the issue we would like the reproduce section 11 5BBC as under: " 115BBC, (1) Where the total income of an assessee, being a person in receipt of income on behalf of any university or other educational institution referred to in such clause ('iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub clause (iiiae) or sub clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause ('iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23G) of section JO or any trust or intuition referred to in section ii, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall he the aggregate of [i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty percent on the aggregate of anonymous donations received in excess of the higher of the following, namely: (A) five per cent of the total donations received by the assessee; or (B) one lakh rupees, and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the aggregate of anonymous donations received.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any anonymous donation received by- (a) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious purposes; (b) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution.

7 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI (3) For the purpose of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause ('24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the persons making such contribution and such other particulars as ma be prescribed]’’ At the end, the facts observed, while recording the statement and the observation made by the ward Inspector through field visit were conveyed to assessee though show cause notice dt. 23.03.2016 and asked the assessee as "why the corpus donation at Rs. 4,27,87,845/- should not be viewed as anonymous donation under Income Tax Act.? In response to show cause letter, the assessee filed the reply vide letter dt. 26.03.2016. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:- …………………………………. ………………………………… "On scrutiny of the audited financial statements, it was revealed to the assessing officer that in the audited balance sheet, assessee trust has shown receipts of donation amounting toRs. 4,43,87,395/- from the various donors. The assessee trust has received donations as voluntary contribution that shall from corpus of the trust. The said donations were applied and utilized during the year for construction of college building i.e. object of the trust. It is revealed that the assessing officer has called the information and has issued notices u/ s 133(6)/ 131 to some of the donors on test check basis. It is also revealed that some letters were returned un-served and some of the donors have attended the summons. Some donors have denied making donations and some donors have confirmed making donations. Based on these facts, your honor has come to the conclusion that the donations received were "anonymous donations" and show cause notice was issued so as to why these donations not be added tothe income of the assessee as "anonymous donation" and be taxed as per the provisions of sec 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said letter it is alleged that the complete addresses were not mentioned and some letters were returned back by the postal tt1 were returned back by the postal department due to "insufficient address" but the sameit is a fact that letters have also been delivered to certain donors. We would like to inform you that the assessee trust has recorded the address as provided to it by the donors. And this is proved by the fact that the letters to some donors were delivered and they attended the summons. In the said notice your honor have completely ignored the fact that confirmations from 455 donors have been filed with your honor in our earlier submission dated 17.03.2016 containing their names, addresses, and PAN/ Identity of most of the donors. We would further like to inform you that we were asked in the month of March-2016 only to submit the conformation. In such small time, we could collect confirmation of 455 donors only. Had we been provided with more time, we could bring confirmations from all the 9360 donors who made the donations to the building corpus fund."

8 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI The contents of the letter is considered but not accepted for the reason given below. 1) The voluntary donation at Rs. 4,43,87,395/- were collected from 9360 individual /donors. It is pertinent to note that in period of 12 months, practically it is not possible to collect huge amount of donation of Rs 4,43,87,395/- in cash from a large number of donors. It is also observed that not a single amount has been received by cheque. 2) As per the donation receipt maintained by the assessee, there appears only nameof the donor with amount of donation given. The postal address of donor has notbeen mentioned nor signature of donor obtained on the donation receipt. Itappears that donor has not provided the counter copy of donation receipt, afterobtaining the donors signature. The assessee trust has not maintained thedonation receipt book having 2 copies of donation i.e for donor and donee. 3. The assessee trust is in receipt of donation throughout the F.Y. 2012-13 exceptSunday (02.04.2012 to 26.03.2013) i.e. the flow of donation was continuous anddaily, throughout the year (365 days) except on Sunday. 4. The observations made by team of Inspector's were communicated to theassessee through show cause notice dt 23.03.2016. The assessee is silenton the issues raised in the show cause notice for treating the donationsas 'Anonymous Donation'. 5. Further, vide letter dt 06.07.2015, the assessee was asked to submit the list of donors specifying name, address, PAN (IF ANY), date and mode of donation for corpus /non-corpus. Thus sufficient time was given to assessee for furnishing the desired information. 6. The assessee has not maintained the data such as names and correct address of donors as required u/s 115BC of Income Tax Act. Section 115BBC Anonymous Donation means any voluntary contribution referred u/s 2(24)(iia), where aperson receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identify indicating thenames and address of a person making such contribution and such other particulars as maybe prescribed. Thus, the anonymous donation at Rs 4,27,87,845/- is taxable as per the provision ofsec 115BBC of I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)((c) are initiated separately forfurnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. In view of the above discussion, the total income is computed as under : Total Income : NIL The corpus donation to the extent, it is treated as anonymous at Rs 4,27,87,845/- is taxedu/s 115BBC of Income Tax Act separately.’’

9 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI In view of the above assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs.4,27,87, 845/- considering it as ‘’anonymous donations’’.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who after perusing the entire facts of the case of the assessee, deleted the addition by observing as under:-

‘’9. I have also called for the assessments records and perused the same, From the assessment records, it can be observed that only the facts which are against the appellant have been highlighted in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the facts available on record which corroborate the information and explanation submitted by the appellant have been completely disregarded by the A.O. For instance, various enquiries were conducted u/s. 133(6) from various donors to which below mentioned people among others have responded and confirmed the respective donations given to the assesses trust, some examples which from part of records are- 1. Ajay ShriramHatwar received on 28.03.2016 along with PAN card to substantiate his identity. 2. BhushanArindKhala received on 28.03.2016 along Aadhar card to substantiate his identity. 3. UmeshRoopraoDhande received on 31.03.2016 along with Aadhar Card to substantiate his identity. 4. LeelabaiShankarraoBhangde received on 30.03.2016 along with Aadhar card to substantiate his identity. 5. Ganesh ShravanFulibande received on 04.04.2016 along with Aadhar card to substantiate his identity. 10. Further, no due consideration was given to all among the 44 donors who were physically produced and were ready to record statements along with their identity proofs and their statements remained to be recorded merely due to time constraints, as recorded in the assessments order at Pg. No. 4. The learned AO has also ignored the statements of the six (6) donors which were recorded by her and who have confirmed to have made the donations also the

10 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI remaining 38 persons who were produced before the Ld. A.O. & their statements could not be recorded due to time constraint. Even in cases where confirmations have been provided by the appellant, in many cases donation has been treated as anonymous donation by the A.O. for want of PAN. 11. Based on the confirmations filed, the learned AO in the assessment order has treated only Rs. 15,99,550/- as genuine donations, received from the parties who have filed confirmations and were also having PAN. The remaining donations amounting to Rs. 4,27,87,845/- were treated as “Anonymous donations”. When the A. O. has made enquiry only in limited case then I fail to understand as to how the entire donation has been treated as anonymous donation. The appellant has claimed that although not required by law, it has tried to provide confirmations etc. of donations amounting to 455 individuals. It had also produced as many as 44 donors for recoding evidence. Many donors had confirmed directly to the A.O. the appellant has claimed that these evidences have been totally disregarded by the A.O. on the other hand based on enquiry with regard to very limited numbers (around 50) donors behind appellant’s back and statement of two or three persons the A.O. has treated almost entire amount of Rs. 4,27,87,845/- as anonymous donation. The appellant has stated that grave prejudice has been caused to him on this account. It is a matter of fact that, the complete list of the donors along with address was submitted before the Asstt. CIT (Exemptions) Nagpur. The A.O. has started investigation in the month of February and March-2016. The appellant has submitted that, there been any doubts on the mind of the AO regarding the genuineness of the donors, the same should have been confronted to the appellant well in time. The appellant has further submitted that in spite of limited time provided it has tried to prove the genuineness of donations to the maximum extent possible. 12. I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and I find substantial force in it. Various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant clearly shows that the only requirement u/s. 115BBC(3) is to maintain record indicating the name and address of the person making such contributions and no other particulars are to be maintained. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, undisputedly, the details indicating the name and address of the donors have been maintained and submitted as recorded at Pg. No. 2 of the assessment order. Furthermore, the assesses has also submitted confirmations along with PAN of the donors wherever possible, which further proves the genuineness of the donations. The A.O. has conducted inquiries of less than one percent of the voluntary contributions received by the assesses and based upon a few instances amongst them, disregarding the evidences brought on record by the assesses concluded that entire donations received by

11 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI the assesses are anonymous, and created more than 99% of the donations to be anonymous donations. 13. To sum up, the number of donors who have given corpus donation in the appellant are 9360 donors. From perusal of assessment order and the case records of the appellant, it appears that no inquiry has been instituted by the A.O. with regard to over 9300 donors. However, in case of these donors, the appellant has provided the details indicating the name and addresses of the donors and therefore has met requirement of section 115BBC. Further, I find that the A.O. has sent letter u/s. 133(6) for confirming the donations in case of 25 donors of which a few donors have confirmed giving donations as is apparent from Para 9 of this appellate order. The A.O., as per the assessment record has also got field enquiries conducted from inspectors in case of about 30 donors. However, the appellant has submitted that the appellant have not been given enough opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the A.O. show cause letter dated 23.03.2016 issued by the AO states the following “On perusal the said list, it is seen that the address mentioned, therein, were not complete postal address. To verify the genuineness of donation, letters were issued to the individual donors. Most of the letters were returned back from the postal department with remark insufficient address. Further, it is mentioned that field enquiry was conducted with the help of team of ward Inspectors. The ward Inspectors have given their respective filed visit report. As per their report, many donors, as mentioned in the list, had denied of giving any donations to assesse trust. In few instances, it is observed that the donors had expired prior to the F.Y. 2012-13 and not made any donations to assesses trust. In light of the above discussion and the observation made through field visit, you are required to convey as to why the corpus donation at Rs. 4,43,87,935/- should not be viewed as anonymous donation and taxed u/s. 115BBC of the I.T. Act.” The perusal of show cause letter and its reply dated 26.03.2016 makes it clear that enough time was not provided to the appellant to give clarification regarding the denial as the A.O. has passed the assessment order on 31.03.2016. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Andaman Timber industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that “ Not allowing assesses to cross examine witness by Adjudication Authority through statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order,

12 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. “

I find that as per assessment order out of total of 25 letters sent u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act, three donors have denied giving donations to the appellant trust. However, out of these three only in one case the appellant has been allowed an opportunity of cross examination. Only in case of Shri. Ajay Darokar cross examination has been allowed to the appellant. On other hand, I find that the appellant has filed confirmations from donors in case of 455 donors. Out of these 455 confirmations, 337 confirmations were with PAN No. However, I also find that the A.O. has also not accepted confirmations filed by the appellant without PAN stating that valid proof for genuineness of confirmation has not been produced. From the assessment order, it is also clear that the appellant has also produced 44 donors in person before the A.O. on 29.02.2016 with proof of identity, and out of these, statement have also been recorded in 6 cases. This being the factual matrix of donations received by the appellant, it is clear that in case of over 9300 cases, the appellant has fulfilled its obligation of providing details of name and address of the donors and as per various judicial precedent relied upon and has fulfilled the responsibility cast upon it u/s. 115BBC of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of many donors, confirmations have been filed and many donors were produced before the A.O. I find that the A.O. has issued letters u/s. 133(6) in 25 cases. The A.O. has stated that 7 letters have returned back unserved. This shows that the remaining letters were served on donors. I also find that out of these 25 letters only 2 donors have replied that they have not given any donation to the appellant. On the other hand, I find that there is confirmation on record with respect to at least 5 donors who have confirmed giving donation (Para 9 of appellate order) by post in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act. Based on these facts these donations cant be called anonymous and non genuine. Further, I find that in 30 cases apparently some field enquiries were conducted by the A.O. However, as stated above the appellant has not been given an opportunity to cross examine those donors who have denied giving donation to the appellant. It is only in one case where the appellant has been given opportunity of cross examination. Looking at these facts, it is clear that in majority of case the appellant has fulfilled the onus cast on it by provisions of Sec. 115BBC as interpreted by various judicial authorities and relied upon by the appellant. Therefore, I find that the evidence and judicial precedent is overwhelming in appellants favor. The A.O., therefore, was not judicious in treating donations of Rs.

13 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI 4,27,87,845/- as anonymous donations within the meaning of sec. 115BBC of the I.T. Act, on the basis of evidence that was produced before the A.O. 14. The A.O. misinterpreted the provisions u/s. 115BBC(3) r.w.s 2 (24) (iia) of the I.T Act.1961. The requirements as stated u/s. 115BBC (3) in all respects have been maintained by the assesses, as the appellant has maintained details of name and address of donors. In view of the above facts and the ratios laid down by various judicial authorities, it can be rightly said that the donations received towards the corpus of the trust are not anonymous donations as the assesses trust has maintained all the requisite details as envisaged u/s 115BBC(3). Hence there has been no contravention of the provisions mentioned u/s 115BBC of the I.T.Act 1961. Consequently, the same cannot be treated as anonymous donations. Once the donations are outside the purview of section 115BBC then the same cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBC.

14(a) Further, the appellant has relied on various judicial pronouncements which show that the appellant has applied/invested more than 85% of the corpus fund on construction of educational institutions. The appellant has submitted that there has been no diversion of funds and therefore has relied on various judicial authorities to state that addition in case of appellant are not warranted even under provisions of sec.68 of the Income tax Act 1961. In this regard Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. Sahyog Jan KalyanSamiti vide order dated 30.04.2013 in ITA No. 276 of 2009. pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 has decided a similar case. In this case the question of law before Hon’ble High Court was that if that ITAT was legally justified on facts and in the eyes of law to hold on merit that the AO was not legally justified to make addition u/s68 of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 1,13,00,308/- on account of bogus corpus donations. Hon’ble High Court has dismissed revenue’s appeal stating that from the material on record, the court did not find any merit in the submissions of the appellant and therefore no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. Hon’ble High Court summarily dismissed the appeal.

14(b) Subsequently, matter pertaining to the society M/s Sahyog Jan KalyanSamiti came up for adjudication before ITAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide ITA No. 568 to 572/LKW/2013 for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and vide ITA No. 607 & 608/LKW/2013 fir A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09. The issue involved in theses appeals was addition u/s 68 on account of Corpus donation and addition u/s 115BBC for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 on account corpus donation not being anonymousdonation. The observation of Hon’ble Tribunal

14 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI with regard to provision u/s. 115BBC have already been dealt in Para 4.2 of this order. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the concluding Para of the judgment has also held the following: “As per sub section (3), unanimous donation are those donations for which no details of donors are maintained by the assesses. If the details are maintained, the donations cannot be called unanimous donation and provisions of section 115BBC cannot be invoked. In the instant case, undisputedly, the details were maintained by the assesses but the addition was made on account of non-furnishing the confirmation letters. We are of the considered view that only those donations can be called unanimous for which details are not maintained. If it is properly maintained, it cannot be called unanimous donation. Since the assessee has maintained the details of donors, the donations cannot be called unanimous donations and provision of section 115BBC cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances of the case. If provision of section 115BBC cannot be invoked, the addition made u/s. 68 are to be deleted in the light of the order of Tribunal in assesee’s case for assessment year 2005-06 and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in which under the identical facts , the additions mad by the Revenue u/s. 68 on account of unexplained corpus donation were deleted. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition.” 14(C) Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in case of Hans Raj Samyak Society Vs. ADIT, ITA No. 882/Del/2011(A.Y 2007-08) Which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 534/2012 and in various cases, the appellant under the provisions of Sec.115BBC was required only to maintain a record of identity indicating the name and address of the contributor. No other details were to be maintained. The appellant has maintained such record and submitted the same to the A.O. The same ruling states that the appellant is not supposed or duty bond to file any confirmation. Therefore the appellant has discharged his onus as cast on it by provision of section 115BBC. The AO has stated that out of 25 letters sent under Sec 136(6) three persons have denied giving such donations and further field enquiries have been conducted and in case of 29 donors denials/ discrepancies were found. I find that even in these 29 cases enquiries were conducted behind appellant’s back and no opportunity of filing further evidence or cross examination was provided to the appellant. However, at the best a view of ratio laid down in case of Hans Raj Samayak Society as discussed above and Hon’bleLucknow Bench

15 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI of ITAT in case of Sahyog Jan KalyanSamiti, at the , the AO can draw adverse inference only with respect to the 34 donorsdiscussed above in whose deposition some discrepancy has been found. These 34 donations amount to Rs. 1,64,000/-. Therefore addition of Rs. 1,64,000/- out of total donation of Rs. 4,05,68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant’s submission. The appellant has maintained details of name and addressed of the donors and has submitted the same to the A.O. Looking at the judicial precedent relied upon the donations can’t be treated as anonymous donor within the meaning of section 115BBC of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,04,04,975/- made to the income of the appellant under the provisions of section 115BBC by treating the donations in corpus fund as anonymous donations. 16. The AO is directed to charge interest u/s. 234B as per law. The ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) being premature is not being adjudicated. 17. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.’’

2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the AO 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and filed the following written submission. ‘’The assessee is a public charitable trust engaged in the activities of imparting education. The assessee trusts operates "Sipna College of Engineering & Technology" at Amravati and 'Arts, Science & Commerce College" at Chikhaldara. The assessee is a charitable trust and is duly registered with office of the Charity Commissioner. The trust is also registered u/s 12A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and is eligible for exemption u/s 11. The assessee trust is regularly assessed to Income Tax. For the year under consideration, the assessee trust had filed its return of income on 28.03.2014 vide acknowledgement no. 168280314019390. The assessee's case was chosen for assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14, in which the amount of voluntary contribution received towards corpus has been treated as "Anonymous Donations" and assessed to tax. During the year under consideration, the assessee trust has received voluntary donations towards the building corpus fund total amounting to Rs.4,43,87,3951- from 9360 donors. The same was duly reflected in the Balance

16 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI Sheet of the trust. These amounts are voluntary contributions only for corpus of the trust. The same were in-fact applied for the very purpose of constructing educational institution only. The assessee trust has duly maintained records of the identity indicating the name & address of the person making such contribution. The list demonstrating the same has been is on record. The same was filed in the month of July 2015. As per the assessment order, it is alleged that the complete addresses were not mentioned and some letters were returned back by the postal department due to 'insufficient address' but at the same time it is a fact that letters have also been delivered to many donors. We would like to inform your honour that the assessee trust has maintained record of the donors based on the address as provided to it by the donors only. We would like to further submit that around 44 individuals were produced in the office of Ld. A.O. on 29.02.2016 from whom donations were received. And out of the above 44 donors, statement of 6 individuals were recorded by the AO, who have confirmed in their statements to have donated the respective sums to the trust. And as the office time was over the statements of other persons could not be recorded. This proves that the amounts received are totally genuine and the donors are real persons and not fictitious persons. Further, confirmations from 455 donors were filed containing their names, addresses and PAN of most of the donors. This fact may also be noted that the assessee was asked in the month of March 2016 only to submit the confirmations. In such small time, the assessee could collect confirmations of 455 donors only. Had there been any doubts on the mind of the AO regarding the genuineness of the donors, the same could have been informed to the assessee well in time, as the list of the donors was submitted in the month of July 2015. Based on the confirmations filed, the learned AO in the assessment order has treated only Rs.15,99,5501- as genuine donations, received from the parties who have filed confirmations were also having PAN. The remaining donation amounting to Rs.4,27,87,845 were treated as "Anonymous donations". The learned AO has also ignored the statements of the six (6) donors which were recorded by herself and who have confirmed to have made the donations also the remaining 38 persons who were produced before the Ld. A.O. & their statements could not be recorded due to time constraints. From the above act of the Ld. A.O. it is crystal clear that she is of the opinion that keeping a record of PAN No. is an essential criterion for not treating a donation as anonymous. The assessee begs to submit that the definition of anonymous donation is an exhaustive one. The requirement u/s 115BBC(3) is to "maintain a record of identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such particulars as may be prescribed". The provisions of section should be read as they are and nothing more can be supplied thereto, nor can anything be subtracted there-from, when the language is clear and unambiguous. The operative words here are "identity, indicating the name and address". Evidently, there is no ambiguity or nebulousness in this expression. The legislature has provided for maintaining the record of the identity which indicates name and address of the donors. Nothing beyond can be read in the section. Moreover,

17 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI provision has been made for particulars as may be prescribed. Undisputedly, however, no such particulars have been prescribed. Therefore, the assessee cannot be said to be found wanting in due compliance of the provisions of section 115BBC(3). The assessee places its reliance upon the Hans RaiSamarak Society vs. ADIT ITA No. 882/De1/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)[Pg. No. 196 to 205] (Vol - II) wherein it has been held that — "On consideration of various provisions applicable to the issue at hand, we find that the definition of the expression "anonymous donation" requires proper interpretation. This expression has been defined in an exhaustive manner and, therefore, no other word can be read in section 115 BBC(3) other than the words finding place therein. The definition is that it means a voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24)(iia), where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the contributor and such other particulars as may be prescribed. No other particular has been prescribed under this provision. Therefore, the receiver has the obligation to maintain the identity indicating the name and address only and nothing more. The Id. counsel has clearly brought out that both the details are mentioned in the donation receipts. These receipts are still in the custody of the department as the receipt books were impounded in the course of survey. This fact has not been rebutted by the Id. DR. The AO has taxed the amount by mentioning that confirmation letters from the donors have not been filed. Such confirmations are not required to be filed for coming to the conclusion as to whether the donation was anonymous or not. Therefore, the case of the revenue regarding taxation of this amount under sub- section (2) fails on this ground itself" The above ratio laid down has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 534/2012. The same has been also followed in case of: 1. (2015)1TO vs. ShriNarain Educational & Welfare Trust in ITA No. 15/Lkw/2015[Pg. No. 213 to 219] (Vol - II); 2. (2014) M/s. Vaishnavi Educational Society vs DCIT in ITA No. 1179 to 1181/Hyd/2014[Pg. No. 220 to 230] (Vol - II); 3. (2014) M/s. Sahyog Jan KalyanSamiti vs. DIT in ITA No. 607&608/Lkw/2013[Pg. No. 231 to 238] (Vol - II); 4. (2012) M/s. GuganSolanki Memorial Educational Society vsADIT in ITA No. 1495 (Del) 2011[Pg. No. 206 to 212] (Vol - II); In the given facts & circumstances of the case, undisputedly, the detailsindicating the name & address of the donors have been maintained. The requirementsas stated u/s. 115BBC(3) in all respects have been maintained by the assessee. Inview of the above facts and the ratios laid down by various judicial authorities, it can be rightly said that the donations received towards the corpus of the trust are notanonymous donations as the assessee trust has maintained all the requisite details as envisaged u/s 115BBC(3). In the assessment order, the learned AO has mentioned that notices u/s 133(6)! 131 were issued to certain donors, out of which, three donors (3) visited the office of the AO and

18 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI denied giving any donations to the assessee trust. The counsel of the assessee was provided opportunity to cross examine only one of the parties (Shri Ajay SheshraojiDarokar). We would like to inform your honour that the said donor was an agriculturist and apparently he neither maintain any record of income and expenditure, nor has filed income tax return. As he did not record the amount of donation made in his books of accounts, he had no choice but to deny the same. In any case, where a few persons have denied making donations, there may be different reasons for the same. The inference cannot be drawn simply by giving weight to transactions of few donors who have denied making donations. But by assessing the cumulative effects of all the facts in their setting as a whole, it cannot be said that the donations received were "anonymous donations" under section 11 5BBC(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that except for a few instances, the Ld. A.O. has not recorded any concrete evidence but has merely casually stated that some of the donors were farmers who denied to have given the donation; some of the donors were students who studied in different colleges. In view of the above, we would like to humbly submit before your honour that the Ld. A.O. has not particularly pointed out from the list of the donors given that who have not confirmed the said donations & mere making a casual statement would not render all the donations received by the assessee as non genuine. The Ld. A.O. has conveniently ignored the facts that number of persons have attended and filed response to notice and attended the office in response to summons u/s 131 and 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Moreover, certain donors have also submitted affidavits for the donations given. However, the Ld. A.O. has not taken any cognizancefor the same. Further, merely because the donors were not produced before the Ld. A.O. does not necessarily lead to the inference that the donors are fictitious persons or there can be any doubt about the genuineness of the donors. Besides, the Ld. A.O. has not brought on record any evidence as regards the diversion of funds received in the form of voluntary contributions. In other words, it is not a case wherein even a part of the donations have been found utilized by the members/ promoters of the society for their own personal purposes or for activities other than charitable purposes. Moreover, we would like to bring to your notice that the donations received towards the corpus of building funds were actually applied/ invested towards the construction of the educational institution only and as such should not have been subjected to addition in the case of the assessee. The said fact is demonstrated from the increase in the investment in fixed assets during the relevant assessment year. PARTICULARS AMOUNT

GROSS RECEIPTS

A - AS PER INCOME & EXPENDITURE A/C. 18,30,48,791

B - VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWADS BUILDING CORPUS FUND 4,43,87,395

19 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI TOTAL 22,74,36,186

LESS: 15% TO BE KEPT ASIDE 3,41,15,428 3,41,15,428

85% AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS TO BE APPLIED A 19,33,20,758

LESS: AMOUNT ACTUALLY APPLIED DURING THE YEAR FOR OBJECT OF THE TRUST 1. REVENUE EXPENDITURE 16,77,59,515 (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION)

B 21,17,57,426

(1,84,36,668 A - B TOTAL INCOME )

OR SAY NIL

In other words, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that even if the voluntary contributions received by the assessee are treated as income, the same would not be assessed to tax as more than 85% of the total income has been applied for charitable purposes as envisaged u/s 11(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee relies on the following cases that are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. In the case of DCIT Vs. Ind° Global Education Foundation (ITAT Chandigarh bench [169 TTJ 0437 (Chn)], it was held that[Pg. No. 239 to 274] (Vol - II) "it is also not in dispute that more than 85% of the corpus amounts have been spent on construction of educational building, which is also admitted by the learned C/T (Appeals) in para 5.6 of the appellate order, would prove that even if it was anonymous donations, it forms part of corpus and have been utilized for the purpose of construction of the building and was thus spent for achieving aims and

20 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI objects of assessee society and as such should not have been subjected to addition in the case of the assessee.„ The definition of anonymous donations as provided in section 115BBC(3) of the Actmeans any voluntary contribution, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of identity indicating name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. However, in the case of the assessee such details have been maintained by the assessee, therefore, could not be even termed as anonymous donations." In the case of ACIT Vs. Shree Ganpati Education Society (ITAT Delhi "G" bench )[23CCH 0639], it was held that[Pg. No. 275 to 283] (Vol - II) "Assessee society had received gross receipts as per income & expenditure accountamounting to Rs.2,45, 14,907/- and has applied the above income in the form of expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,04,96,354/- thereby making a deficit of income over expenditure amounting to Rs. 59,81,447/-. The assessee society has made investments in fixed assets amounting to Rs. 4,47,64,551, therefore, taking the total application of funds to the tune of Rs. 5,07,45,998/-. So, even if the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs is added to the income of society even then there will remain excess of application over the income of society. Therefore, CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AC" In the case of Sunder Deep Educational Society Vs. Ad. CIT (ITAT Delhi HG" bench )[ITA No. 2428/Del/201 1], it was held that [Pg. No. 284 to 292] (Vol - II) "We are of the view that benefit of Section 11 & 12 in computing income cannot be denied. Consequently, we allow the appeal of assessee and direct the AC to verify the facts that the assessee has applied 85% of its income during the year including these donations on its objects. if the claim of the assessee that it has incurred an expenditure towards fulfillment of its object during the year then its income would be assessable at NIL, because incurrence of this expenditure would take care of additions." We would further like to inform you that the assessee trust has also received voluntary contribution towards corpus in the earlier years also & the same was duly accepted by the Income Tax Department in orders u/s 143(3). Therefore in light facts of the case & above case laws, we request your honour that the voluntary contributions received may kindly be allowed to the assessee.’’

2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are the assessee had filed its return of income on 28-03-2014 declaring total income at Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act was

21 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI processed. The case of the assessee was picked for Scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 25-09-2014 was issued and served to the assessee. Due to change of incumbent, the fresh notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 06-07-2015 was issued to the assesseealongwith detailed questionnaire. The assessee is a registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Securities Registration Act, 1960. The assessee is a trust created for the purpose of spreading education. The assessee trust is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act. The main sources of its receipts are Bank interest, voluntary contributions, Grants, fees from students etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted balance sheet for the year ending on 31-03-2013, Income and Expenditure a/c etc. The AO, after perusal of the balance sheet observed that the assessee trust had received corpus donation at Rs.4,43,87,395/- and addition was made to the Building Fund. The AO in order to verify the genuineness of donations, details of donors were called for like names, complete address, PAN, alongwith donations receipts, Bank Passbook etc.. The assessee submitted the confirmations letters from 455 donors (inclusive of 44 donors), out of which PAN was provided in 337 cases. According to the AO, neither PAN nor identity was provided as to remaining 118 donors. According to the AO that in absence of any documentary evidence to verify the information such as full name of the donor with his address, his signatures etc. the confirmation letter did not carry material value, and the AO did not

22 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI accept confirmation letter. The AO indicated in the assessment order that in some cases, the assessee had proved the identity, indicating names and address of the donors, and confirmations letters of 337 individual donors amounting to Rs.15,99,950/- was accepted as genuine donation and the AO granted relief to that extent. The AO thus concluded that the assessee has not maintained the data such as name and their address, PAN (if any) of the individual donors to the extent of donation of Rs.4,27,87,845/- which the AO treated as ‘’anonymous donation’’ u/s 115BBC of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has given detailed findings in his order, however, the relevant para 14 (c) to 15 of the ld. CIT(A), giving the direction to the AO to delete the addition is reproduced as under:-

‘’14(C) Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in case of Hans Raj Samyak Society Vs. ADIT, ITA No. 882/Del/2011(A.Y 2007-08) Which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 534/2012 and in various cases, the appellant under the provisions of Sec.115BBC was required only to maintain a record of identity indicating the name and address of the contributor. No other details were to be maintained. The appellant has maintained such record and submitted the same to the A.O. The same ruling states that the appellant is not supposed or duty bond to file any confirmation. Therefore the appellant has discharged his onus as cast on it by provision of section 115BBC. The AO has stated that out of 25 letters sent under Sec 136(6) three persons have denied giving such donations and further field enquiries have been conducted and in case of 29 donors denials/ discrepancies were found. I find that even in these 29 cases enquiries were conducted behind appellant’s back and no opportunity of filing further evidence or cross examination was provided to the appellant. However, at the best a view of ratio laid down in case of Hans Raj Samayak Society as discussed above and Hon’bleLucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Sahyog Jan KalyanSamiti, at the , the AO can draw adverse inference only with respect to the 34 donorsdiscussed above in whose deposition some discrepancy has been found. These 34 donations amount to Rs. 1,64,000/-. Therefore addition of

23 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI Rs. 1,64,000/- out of total donation of Rs. 4,05,68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant’s submission. The appellant has maintained details of name and addressed of the donors and has submitted the same to the A.O. Looking at the judicial precedent relied upon the donations can’t be treated as anonymous donor within the meaning of section 115BBC of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,04,04,975/- made to the income of the appellant under the provisions of section 115BBC by treating the donations in corpus fund as anonymous donations.’’

In this case, it is also noted that the ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgement of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Hans Raj Samyak Society vs ADIT (ITA No. 882/Del/2011 – A.Y. 2007-08) which has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA No.534/2012 wherein the appellant under the provisions of Section 115BBC was required only to maintain a record of the identity indicating the names and addresses of the contributor and no other details were to be maintained. From the above discussions, it is felt that the ld. CIT(A) elaborately discussed the issue of deletion of addition of Rs.4,04,04,975/- in view of the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench and Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra). It is also noted from the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assesse trust has also received voluntary contributions towards corpus in earlier years and the same was duly accepted by the Income Tax Department in orders u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, taking into consideration, the above, facts, circumstances of the case, written submissions of the assessee, judicial pronouncements and detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A), we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.4,04,04,975/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee

24 ITA NO. 223/NAG/2017 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR VS SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, AMRAVATI under the provisions of Section 115BBC of the Act by treating the donations in corpus fund as anonymous donations. Thus, we find no infirmity in order of the ld. CIT(A) which is sustained. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/06/2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) Accountant Member Judicial Member Nagpur Dated:- 28/06/2022

*Mishra Copy of the order forwarded to: The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Nagpur. 1. The Respondent- M/s. SipnaShikshan Prasarak Mandal, Amravati 2. CIT 3. The CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard File (ITA No. 223/Nag/2017) 6. By order, Sr. Private Secretary