ALPINE TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO(E), TRUST WARD -1(1), NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-40, New Delhi, dated 03.11.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition of corpus donations of Rs. 64.00.000/- assessable u/s 115BBC as Anonymous donations particularly when the appellant Society had maintained complete details i.e. names and addresses of donors in respect of Corpus donations except in cases pertaining to villages where house numbers do not exist.

3. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on the facts of case to ignore provisions of Section 11,12 and 13 relating to charitable institutions and upholding the additions in respect of donations u/s 115BBC of the Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the assessment order in view of the facts that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellant by the assessing officer due to closure of the premises of the appellant due to attachment of property by the bank. 5. The appellant craves the leave of Hon’ble Tribunal to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.

2. Briefly stated facts are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring Nil income on 30.03.2013. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (the “Act”) was framed vide order dated 31.03.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that on perusal of income and expenditure account & balance sheet of the year under appeal the assessee had shown unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 76,00,000/-; Rs. 64,00,000/- as corpus fund receipts and donations amounting to Rs. 85,81,760/- . Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the genuineness of the unsecured loan, corpus fund receipts and donations. The assessee filed its explanation along with the list of donors. The same was found not reliable and the AO, therefore, made addition of Rs. 1,59,52,672/- and assessed the income accordingly. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- and other additions were sustained.

Aggrieved against the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Learned DR submitted that by way of present appeal the assessee is challenging the additions made on account of corpus fund receipts of Rs. 64,00,000/- and addition of Rs. 85,81,760/- being the same received as donations being anonymous. Learned Sr. DR submitted that a perusal of the list submitted by the assessee would demonstrate that no complete addresses were given regarding the donors and it was found that there were common addresses of various donors. He, therefore, submitted that under the facts of the present case no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A).

“5.1 Ground of appeal no. l challenges the addition of Rs. 61,52,672/- as anonymous donation. Ground of appeal no. 2 challenges treating of corpus donations amounting to Rs. 64,00,000/- as anonymous donation. Since the issue in both these grounds is the same, these grounds are being adjudicated together. 5.1.1 The Assessing Officer noted certain irregularities in details of addresses of the donors maintained in respect of donation (other than corpus). Many of the addresses were found to be incomplete. The said irregularities in the address have been highlighted in the assessment order and are reproduced below: i. In 7 donors therein ranging from r. no.245 to r. no 251, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "A Block, Nehru Nagar 2”. ii. In 28 donors therin ranging from r. no. 409 to r. no. 436, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "New Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad". iii. In 19 donors therin ranging from r.no. 452 to r.no. 470, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad". iv. In 188 donors therin ranging from rmo. 471 to r.no. 558, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad". v. In 33 donors therin ranging from r.no. 560 to r.no. 592, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Moh. Satah Bulandshahr". vi. In 5 donors therin ranging from r.no. 593 to r.no. 597, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Kot Gaon Dadri, Gautam Bugli Nagar." vii. In 35 donors therin ranging from r.no. 696 to r.no. 730 common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Nazeempura Bhooropp-Telephone Exchange, Bulandshahr, UP". viii. In 21 donors therin ranging from r.no 784 to r.no. 804 and r.no. 856 to r.no 859, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Lohia Nagar Ghaziabad". ix. In 16 donors therin ranging from r.no 839 to r.no. 855, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Indrapuram Ghaziabad x. In 29 donors therin ranging from r.no 863 to r.no. 892, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad ". xi. In 48 donors therin ranging from r.no 893 to r.no. 940, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Moh. Kasyath Wara Sikandrabad". xii. In 39 donors therin ranging from r.no 941 to r.no. 979, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Sec. 18 Noida". xiii. In 20 donors therin ranging from r.no 980 to r.no. 1000, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Suraj Pur Greater Noida G.B. Nagar xiv. In 29 donors therin ranging from r.no 126 to r.no. 1054, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Patthar Wara, Sikandrabad”. xv. In 17 donors therin ranging from r.no 1055 to r.no. 1071, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Patthar Warn,

5.1.2 With respect to corpus donations also, the following discrepancies were observed in the address: i. In 109 donors therin ranging from r.no.176 to r.no 201 and r.no. 230 to r.no. 313, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “A Block, Nehru Nagar 2". ii. In 85 donors therin ranging from r.no. 369 and r.no. 398 to r.no. 641 to r.no. 695, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Nazeempura Bhooropp-Telephone Exchange, Btilandshahr, UP". iii. In 9 donors therin ranging from r.no. 400 to r.no. 408 and r.no. 437, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “New Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad". iv. In 9 donors therin ranging from r.no. 441 to r.no. 447 and r.no. 449 and r.no. 450, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad" v. In 12 donors therm ranging from r.no. 479 to r.uo. 490, common incomplete aJJi^SS IMS mentioned i.e. "Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad". vi. In 43 donors tlierin ranging from r.no. 598 to r.no. 640, common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. "Kot Gaon Dadri, Gautam Bngh Nagar." vii. In 15 donors tlierin ranging from r.no. 805 to r.no. 819 common incomplete address was mentioned i.e. “Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad". viii. In 23 donors tlierin ranging from r.no 820 lo r.no. 838 and r.no. 856 lo r.no 859, common incomplete address ivas mentioned i.e. "Indrapurani, Ghaziabad".

5.1.3 Vide show cause notice dated 13.03.2015 and subsequently 20.03.2015, the assessee was asked given details but no further clarifications were given. In view of this, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBC. The appellant has submitted that the additions had been made under section 115BBA and that this section is not applicable in the case of the assessee. It has also been submitted that the opinion of the Assessing Officer that the donations are anonymous is solely based on the fact that certain addresses and the details submitted to him were incomplete. It has been submitted that the assessee maintains details of addresses as required under the provisions of the Act and hence the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not factually and legally correct. 5.1.4 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. With regard to the contention of the appellant that addition has been made under section 115BBA which is not applicable in the case of the assessee, it is to be noted that the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 115BBC in the main order. Hence, writing 115BBA in the computation part seems to be an inadvertent typographical error and is covered under the provisions of section 29TB.

5.1.5 As regards the issue of anonymous donation, section 115BBC was brought on the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04:.2007. Sub-section (3) of the said section defines anonymous donations to mean any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of section 2(24) where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain record of identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. The appellant has contended that all the requirements as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned have been fulfilled since the assessee is to maintain the identity of the person making the donation indicating the names and addresses of the person. 5.1.6 The question which arises here is that whether merely maintaining a list is sufficient for the purpose of section 115BBC? This issue has been addressed by the hon’ble ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Shri Girraj Educational and Welfare Society v. Income-tax Officer 3(4), Mathura [(2012) 27 taxmann.com 89 (Agra)] wherein the hon’ble ITAT have observed as under:

“13. … Merely filing list fo donors containing names and addresses/ incomplete addresses does not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 115BBC(3) of the Act. The sub-section (3) of section 115BBC has explained the meaning of anonymous donation clearly that such institution is required to maintain records of identity indicting the names and addresses of the persons making the donations or contributions. On a perusal of records, we do not find that the assessee has maintained such records of identity indicting names and addresses of the donors. After sample examination carried out by the Revenue Authorities, it was found that in some cases the assessee has proved identity indicating the names and addresses of the donors. Therefore, to that extent, it can be said that there was no anonymous donation. The burden is on the assessee to explain that the assessee has maintained records of identity indicating names and addresses of the persons of such contribution or donation. Since the assessee has failed to maintain such records, under the circumstances, it is clearly a case covered by anonymous donation. …” 5.1.7 In addition, with respect to corpus donations, despite repeated opportunities no details were filed to show that the corpus donations were given with specific direction as required under section 11(1)(d). 5.1.8 In view of the fact that merely a list of donors has been submitted both for corpus and other donations wherein even the addresses maintained were not complete as brought out above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 115BBC. Grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 5.1.9 The appellant has also moved an additional ground with regard to computing tax under section 115BBC wherein it has been mentioned that credit has not been given for the losses of the assessee. There is no provision for giving credit for losses while computing tax under section 115BBC and hence this additional ground has no merit and is dismissed.”

5.1 The above finding of learned CIT(A) is not controverted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in CIT(A). The same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 31st October, 2023.