ANKLESHWAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

2. The Appellant therefore, prays that donations of Rs. 1,05,02,584/- be held no includible in the income of the Appellant as being received for specific purpose/activities as forming part of the corpus and therefore covered by provisions of Section 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. Your Appellant prays to reserve the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”

Ankleshwar Industrial Development Society 2. On perusal of record, we find s that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 25.04.2018, however this appeal was presented before Tribunal on 23.09.2019. Thus, there is a delay of 441 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal. The ld. Authorised representative (AR) of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay dated 19.09.2019. In the application, the appellant/AR contended that order of ld. CIT (A) was received by assessee on 11.05.2018. The assessee sent the copy of impugned order and challan dated 30.05.2018 for appeal filing fees to her office, accordingly the appeal was prepared and was sent to the office of Shri Kunal K. Gajjar, Chartered Accountant (C.A.), who is having his office in Surat. The appeal paper and challan was sent through courier on 02.06.2018. The assessee in order to know the status of appeal, when inspected website of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), find that no details for the appeal was available. The applicant /AR inquired from Shri Kunal K. Gajjar, CA about filing of appeal. The said Shri Kunal K. Gajjar, CA informed that due to shifting his office from Baranpuri Bhagol to Bhimrad office they forget to file before Tribunal and to inform her office. To support the contents of application, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed her own affidavit narrating similar facts.

Ankleshwar Industrial Development Society 7. On merit of the assessee, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee is squarely covered in her favour by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in dated 20.10.2021 for A.Y. 2012-13, copy of which is already pleaded on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is no variation in the facts for the year under consideration. The assessee has received donation from its member for specific purpose/activities as forming part of carpus.

8. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A).

9. We have considering the rival submissions both the parties and find that on similar grounds of appeal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, this combination by following decision of assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2012-14 in ITA No. 854/AHD/2017/SRT passed followings order.:- “4. We have considered the submission of both the parties and after going through the lower authorities and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.854/AHD/2017/SRT (supra), we find that there is no variation of facts except addition of figure of disallowances under 11(1)(d) of the Act. We find that on similar facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed the following order: “11. We have noted above, the donations received from Lupim Ltd., it is discernable that in the receipt issued by the appellant company (paper book pg. 79) it is clear that the donation has Ankleshwar Industrial Development Society been received by the assessee company for development and extension of mobile van project approved by National committee u/s. 35AC of the Act. Further, from the copy of the receipt issued to Miraj Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 11.05.2011 (assessee paper book pg. 109) it is also clear that the appellant society received corpus fund for development and extension of project and the same was declared as eligible for tax exempt u/s. 80G(5) of the Act.

12. These two sample cases leave no doubt in our mind that the impugned donations were received by the appellant society for a specific purposes/activities and the project was approved by the national committee of Central Govt. u/s. 35AC of the Act. We, therefore, are of the opinion that impugned donations, received by the appellant during the relevant period, have been received for a specific purposes/activities and the same is forming part of corpus fund therefore, covered by provision of s. 11(1)(d) of the Act and hence, the same is exempt and cannot treated as income of the assessee for the relevant period. Our conclusion also gets strong support from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Sthanakvasi Vardhaman Vanik Jain Sangh and CIT Vs. Gujarat Safai Kamdar Vikas Nigam(supra). Finally, we hold that the AO was not correct and justify in dismissing the claim of the assessee and ld. CIT(A) was not also justified and correct in upholding the same and hence, Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed and the AO directed to delete the addition as the impugned donations are not includable in the income of the assessee as being received for a specific purpose/activity forming part of corpus and therefore, covered by the provision of s. 11(1)(d) of the Act.”