INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1, RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAITANY MAHAPRABHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR

आदेश / ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur dated 02.08.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2016 for assessment year 2014-15. Before us the department has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

3 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

4 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

assessee had during the year under consideration claimed to have raised loans aggregating to Rs. 2,33,52,000/-. However, as the assessee is stated to have failed to substantiate the identity and the creditworthiness of the lenders a/w genuineness of the loan transactions, therefore, the A.O added the entire amount of the impugned loans as unexplained cash credits under Sec. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O after, inter alia, making the aforesaid additions therein vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated 30.12.2016 assessed the income of the assessee trust at Rs. 4,83,48,500/-.

5 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

assessee had furnished the aforesaid complete details in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A). It was the claim of the assessee that now when in almost all the donations the names and addresses of the donors a/w PAN Nos., Aadhar Card etc. had been maintained, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the A.O in dubbing the same as anonymous donations. In order to fortify its aforesaid claim the assessee had drawn support from the order of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Vaishnavi Educational Society, 167 TTJ 774 (Hyd). It was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had though furnished the details of the donors such as names, addresses and PAN No(s), but had not filed the copies of the donation receipts. On the contrary, it was the claim of the assessee that it had duly furnished the donation receipts in the course of the assessment proceedings. Considering the fact that the assessee had furnished the documents, viz. complete set of donation receipts and addresses of the donors, the CIT(A) forwarded the same to the ITO(Exemption), Raipur and called for his remand report. In reply

6 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

the A.O objected to the furnishing of the aforesaid documents, viz. list of donors, PAN No(s). and Aadhar card No(s)., for the reason that the same despite sufficient opportunity were not produced by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. It was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that as the A.O had not advanced any adverse comments on the merits of the documents which were filed by the assessee to establish the identity of the donors, viz. names, addresses, PAN No(s). and Aadhar Cards of the donors, therefore, there was no justification on his part in treating the donations received by the assessee trust from duly identified donors as anonymous donations under Sec. 115BBC of the Act. The CIT(A) drawing support from the orders of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Vaishnavi Educational Society, 167 TTJ 774 (Hyd) and that of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Hansraj Samarak Society, 133 ITD 530 (Del), therein concluded that now when the assessee had not only furnished the list of donors but also produced the copies of the receipts issued to them, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the A.O in treating the same as anonymous donations.

7 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

2,33,52,000/- that were claimed by the assessee to have been

received from four persons as unexplained cash credits under

Sec. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, it was observed by the CIT(A)

that the assessee had claimed to have received the impugned

loans of Rs. 2,33,19,000/- (wrongly mentioned by the A.O as Rs.

2,33,52,000/-), as under :

Name & address of the loan Amount of loan creditors & PAN details received during the F.Y.13-14 Sushil Kumar Agrawal 1,05,58,500/- Opening bal as on 1-4-13 was S/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal Rs.8,90,383 and Rs. Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa 16,29,000 has been repaid PAN : ABJPA2065K during the FY 13-14 and closing bal as on 31-3-14 was Rs. 98,19,883. Confirmation, IT return, computation of income, balance sheet and bank statement submitted before your honor. Mahavir Prasad Agrawal 22,00,000/- Opening bal as on 1-4-13 was S/o Late Shri Gopiram Agrawal, Rs.22 lakhs has been repaid Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa on 17-5-13 and closing bal as PAN : ABZPA1901E on 31.3.14 was Rs.22 lakhs. Smt.Mangati Devi Agrawal 1,05,58,500/- Opening bal as on 1-4-13 was W/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal 18 lakhs and has been repaid Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa on 17-5-13 and closing bal as PAN : ABZPA1902H on 31-3-14 was Rs. 1,05,58,500. Confirmation, IT return, computation of income, balance sheet and bank statement submitted before your honor Smt.Shashikala Agrawal 2,000/- Total 2,33,19,000/-

8 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

Observing that though the assessee had in order to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions in question had furnished the loan confirmations in the course of the assessment proceedings, but had furnished the remaining documents i.e. copies of the returns of income, computation of income, balance sheets and bank statements of the lenders for the very first time before him, the CIT(Appeals) forwarded the same to the A.O for his comments. In reply, the A.O objected to seeking of admission of the aforesaid additional documents U/rule 46A before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not find favor with the objection raised by the A.O and admitted that additional documents that were filed by the assessee before him. After deliberating at length on the respective loan transactions in question, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that all the lenders had duly confirmed advancing of loans to the assessee trust and the same were duly reflected in their respective balance sheets. Considering the fact that the assessee had duly discharged the onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of

9 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

the loan transactions by placing on record supporting documentary evidences, viz. confirmations of the lenders a/w their copies of returns of income, balance sheets, bank accounts etc., the CIT(A) was of the view that there was no justification in dubbing the loans in question as unexplained cash credits under Sec. 68 of the Act by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations vacated the addition of Rs. 2,33,52,000/- that was made by the A.O under Sec.68 of the Act.

10 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

by the CIT(A). Ostensibly, the assessee had claimed to have received during the year donations aggregating to Rs. 1,47,41,000/-, viz. (i) donations towards corpus fund : Rs. 57,51,000/-; and (ii) donations other than corpus donations included in the gross receipts: Rs. 89,90,000/-. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it transpires that though the assessee had in the course of the assessment proceedings furnished details of the donors such as names, addresses, PAN No(s) but had not filed the donation receipts. On the contrary, the A.O had observed in his order that the assessee had neither produced the donation receipts nor filed the list of donors establishing their identity, viz. names, addresses and PAN No(s). Rebutting the aforesaid claim of the A.O, it was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the requisite documentary evidence substantiating the identity of the donors was filed in the course of the assessment proceedings. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee in the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) had furnished documents establishing the identity of the donors, viz. copies of donation receipts, list of donors, PAN No(s). and Aadhar cards, which the

11 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

latter had forwarded to AO vide his letter dated 22.02.2018 calling upon him to furnish his report. In reply, the A.O though admittedly examined the aforesaid documentary evidence that was filed by the assessee to establish the identity of the donors, but objected to the admission of the same for the reason that it was not filed in the course of the assessment proceedings. Observing that the A.O had not made any adverse comments as regards the aforesaid documents which were filed by the assessee as additional evidence U/rule 46A, the CIT(A) was of the view that now when the identity of the respective donors was duly established on the basis of their PAN No(s)/Aadhar cards and donation receipts, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the AO to have dubbed the same as anonymous donations.

12 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

cards and donation receipts divulging their complete details, thus, there was no justification on the part of the AO to treat the same as anonymous donations under Sec. 115BBC of the Act. Our aforesaid view that where the assessee had furnished complete details of the donors along with their PAN Nos, then the donations so received from them cannot be held to be anonymous donations under Section 115BBC of the Act is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Asst. CIT (Exemption), Raipur Vs. Shri Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Educational and Cultural Society, ITA No. 103/Rpr/2018; dated 04.05.2022 (to which one of us, the J.M was a party), wherein after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements it was held as under : “15. Before adverting any further, we deem it fit and appropriate to cull out Section 115BBC of the Act, which reads 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 sub-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 (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income- tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent 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

13 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

(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 in excess of the amount referred to in sub-clause (A) or sub-clause (B) of clause (i), as the case may be. (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. (3) For the purposes 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 person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 01.04.2007, we find that the meaning of the term “anonymous donation” can be traced in sub-section (3) of Section 115BBC of the Act, which as culled out by us hereinabove, reads as under: “(3) For the purposes 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 person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” As per the aforesaid definition, any voluntary contribution referred to in sub- clause (iia) of clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act, where the person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution a/w such other particulars as may be prescribed would fall within the meaning of the said term. In the case before us, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had duly maintained a record indicating the names and addresses of the persons from whom contributions have been received. In so far maintaining of the records qua “… such other particulars as may be prescribed”, neither any such particulars have been prescribed within the meaning of Sec 115BBC of the Act, nor is it the case of the revenue that the

14 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

assessee had failed to maintain record of any such prescribed particulars. Accordingly, as could safely or in fact inescapably be gathered from a plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provision, i.e, Sec. 115BBC of the Act, as per the mandate of law the assessee is obligated to maintain record of the identity of the contributors indicating the names and addresses of the persons making such contributions/donations, failing which the amounts so received would fall within the meaning of “anonymous donation” as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Sec. 115BBC. As in the case before us, the assessee society had duly maintained a record indicating the names and addresses of the contributors, therefore, the amount so received by it could not have been brought within the meaning of “anonymous donation” under Sec. 115BBC of the Act. Our aforesaid conviction is duly fortified by the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench “G” in the case of ACIT Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, (2019) 106 taxmann.com 249 ( Delhi). In its aforesaid order it was observed by the Tribunal as under: “10. The anonymous donations will not be covered if donations received by any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious purposes or donations received by any trust or institution created or established for both religious as well as 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. Sub-section (3) defines "anonymous donation" to mean any voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24)(iia), where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record consisting of the identity of the person making such contribution indicating the name and address of the person and such other particulars as may be prescribed. We asked whether the central board of direct tax has prescribed any particulars which is required to be maintained by the assessee trust, the answer was no. We also did not find any such prescription about what kind of particulars the assessee trust is required to maintain. Therefore, it is apparent that at present the simple requirement is maintaining the name and address of the donors. In the present case, the assessee has already given much more detail then the name and address of the donors. Therefore with respect to the donation from 1038 persons the assessee has shown their name and address along with other particulars. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee has not maintained and provided these details to the assessing officer. In view of this we do not find that the donation received by the assessee falls into the definition of anonymous donation. Hence on the applicability of the provisions of section 115BBC of the income tax act we find that the learned CIT - A has correctly reached the conclusion that the donation received by the assessee is not an anonymous donation as provided under section 115BBC of the act. Therefore on this count also we uphold the order of the learned CIT - A.”

15 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

Also, a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Lucknow Bench, “A”, Lucknow in the case of Archisha Educational Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow in ITA No.195/LKW/2020, dated 09.02.2021. In its aforesaid order the Tribunal had after placing reliance on a host of judicial pronouncements observed as under: “4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The brief facts as are coming out from material on record are that the appellant is a educational society established in the year 2008 with the object for imparting education and it is registered u/s. 12A of the Act. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring NIL income whereas the assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs.1,93,51,200/-. While framing the assessment, the ld. AO has made additions of anonymous donations u/s. 115BBC of the Act. The AO had observed that the assessee had received corpus donations amounting to Rs.1,19,76,200/-. The ld. AO further observed that the assessee had received Rs.1,000/- per student per month from all the students, the amount of which, amounted to Rs.71,88,800/-. The AO further observed that the assessee had received donations to the tune of Rs.16,62,000/- from various persons. In order to verify the genuineness of these receipts, the AO issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to 21 persons on random basis out of which, confirmations were received from 19 persons and from two persons confirmation were not received and the letters were received back. From confirmation letters the AO observed that the replies were sent from Lucknow whereas the assessee was situated at Hardoi and therefore, he treated the donations as in genuine. However, out of total of Rs.16,62,000/- received from donors the AO treated only Rs.1,87,000/- as anonymous donations whereas all other donations received from students were held to be anonymous donations and taxed u/s. 115BBC of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) however allowed relief to the assessee substantially and confirmed additions to the tune of Rs.1,64,000/- only from three persons. While giving relief to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) allowed relief in respect of 19 students in respect of whom the confirmations were received and also allowed relief in respect of students to whom no notices were issued. The revenue is against the relief allowed on various grounds wherein one of the ground is that AO had issued notices to only 19 persons therefore, donations from rest of the persons verified cannot be said to be as they could not be confirmed. We find that the additions were made by AO by treating the donations as anonymous donations u/s. 115BBC of the Act. Therefore, it is important to first visit the provisions of Section 115BBC of the Act which reads as under:

16 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

"Anonymous donations to be taxed in certain cases. 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 sub-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 (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of-- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent 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 in excess of the amount referred to in sub- clause (A) or sub-clause (B) of clause (i), as the case may be. (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. (3) For the purposes 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 person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed." 5. As per the above definition, the person receiving the donations has to maintain the record of the identity indicating the name and addresses of the persons making such donations. To come out of the definition of anonymous donation, the only requisite condition is that names and addresses from whom the donation has been received has to be maintained. The section is silent thereafter unlike Section 68 which casts an obligation on the assessee to explain the amount credited in the books along with the explanation to the satisfaction of

17 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

AO. The moment the person receiving the donations provides the record containing the names and addresses of the persons from whom the donation has been received such donation comes out of the definition of anonymous donations. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that assessee had maintained complete record regarding identity of donors along with their addresses. Such information has been filed before us also in the form of paper book which is placed Pgs. 6 to 24. This list of donors other then students contains PAN numbers also. Therefore, these donations cannot be termed as anonymous donations and hence cannot taxed u/s. 115BBC of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Shree Shiv Vankeshwar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, (Supra) vide order dated 16.05.2019 in Para 10 has held as under: "10. The anonymous donations will not be covered if donations received by any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious purposes or donations received by any trust or institution created or established for both religious as well as charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation Page | 6 ACIT Vs Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, ITA No. 4623/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) 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. Sub-section (3) defines "anonymous donation" to mean any voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24)(iia), where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record consisting of the identity of the person making such contribution indicating the name and address of the person and such other particulars as may be prescribed. We asked whether the central board of direct tax has prescribed any particulars which is required to be maintained by the assessee trust, the answer was no. We also did not find any such prescription about what kind of particulars the assessee trust is required to maintain. Therefore, it is apparent that at present the simple requirement is maintaining the name and address of the donors. In the present case, the assessee has already given much more detail then the name and address of the donors. Therefore with respect to the donation from 1038 persons the assessee has shown their name and address along with other particulars. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee has not maintained and provided these details to the assessing officer. In view of this we do not find that the donation received by the assessee falls into the definition of anonymous donation. Hence on the

18 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

applicability of the provisions of section 115BBC of the income tax act we find that the learned CIT - A has correctly reached the conclusion that the donation received by the assessee is not an anonymous donation as provided under section 115BBC of the act. Therefore on this count also we uphold the order of the learned CIT-A." 6.1 Similarly the ITAT, Lucknow Benches in ITA No. 15/Lkw/2015 vide order dated 10.07.2015 in para 8 held as under: "8. In other cases also similar view was expressed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, since. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance can be made either under section 68 of the Act or under section 115BBC of the Act. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition." 6.2 The Lucknow Bench in ITA No. 665/Lkw/2016 vide order dated 31.08.2018 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding as under: "5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee is registered u/s 12A of the Act vide order dated 10/06/2008 passed by learned CIT, Lucknow. During the assessment year the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received donation and voluntary contribution amounting to Rs.95 lakh and therefore, the assessee was required to furnish complete names and addresses of the persons from whom donations and voluntary contributions were received. The assessee furnished the complete list of donors with names and addresses, a copy of which is placed at pages 11 to 40 of the paper book. As per the provisions of section 115BBC(3) the 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 person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Learned D. R. was not able to demonstrate as to what other particulars have been prescribed for recording the voluntary contributions or donations. The record maintaining the name and address of the persons has already been maintained by the assessee and during assessment proceedings a complete list was provided to the Assessing Officer, a copy of which is placed at pages 11 to 40 of the paper book. The learned CIT(A) has relied on the case law of Hans Raj Samarak Society vs.

19 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) of Delhi Tribunal and has also relied on the case law of Gagan Solanki Memorial Educational Society vs. Asstt. Director of I.Tax (E) where the requirement of section 115BBC has been discussed. The relevant findings of learned CIT(A) are reproduced as under: "5.4 I have examined the facts and circumstances of the case and have considered the findings of the AO and submissions of the appellant. The main issue in dispute is whether provisions of sec 115BBC of the I.T Act, 1961 were violated or not by the appellant and whether the donations of Rs.95,00,000/- received by it can be categorised as anonymous donations. In order to prevent channelisation of unaccounted money to these institutions by way of anonymous donations, a new section 115BBC has been inserted to provide that any income of a wholly charitable trust or institution by way of any anonymous donation shall be included in its total income and taxed at the rate of 30%. Anonymous donation to wholly religious trusts or institutions will not be taxed. Anonymous donation has been defined in the new section to mean any voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24) (iia) of the Act, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. To be excluded from the definition of anonymous donations the person receiving the donation is required to maintain the record of identity indicating the name and address of contributor and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Since no other particulars have been prescribed under the provisions the person receiving the donation is under obligation to maintain the identity of donors indicating the name and address. On perusal of the details filed by appellant it is seen that the appellant has not only furnished the names and addresses of donors but also furnished a number of other details in respect of some donors viz ID proofs and address proofs. In view of above it is held that appellant has established the identity of donors as provided u/s 115BBC of IT. Act, 1961 and the donations received by the appellant cannot be categorised as

20 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax as per provisions of sec 115BBC of IT. Act, 1961. 5.5 Reliance is also placed on decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bench A in ITO-2(3), Lucknow Vs. M/s Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust in ITA no 776/LKW/2014 Dated 17.06.2015 werein the facts on the issue of anonymous donations are similar to the appellant's case. 5.6 Reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in case of Hans Raj Samarak Society Vs. ADIT 16 Taxman103. As per the decision the receiver has the obligation to maintain the identity indicating the name and address only and nothing more. No other particular has been prescribed under the provision. No other word can be read in Sec-115BBC(3) other than words finding place therein. 5.7 Reliance was also placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court which confirmed the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in case of DIT(E) Delhi Vs. Hans Raj SamarakSociety(2013) 35 Taxman642(Delhi). 5.8 Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s Gugan Solanki Memorial Educational Society vs. ADIT(E) in ITA No. 1495 (Del.)/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein it has been held that "The legislature has provided for maintaining the record of identity which indicates names and address of donors. Nothing beyond can be read in the section. Moreover, provision has been made for particular's as may be prescribed. Undisputedly, however, no such particulars have been prescribed." In view of above discussion and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Hon'ble Delhi ITAT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- made by the AO is not justified is hereby deleted." 5.1 The above findings of learned CIT(A) are quite exhaustive and require no interference from our side. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed." 7. Similar view has been taken in various cases relied on by ld. AR.

21 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the re- characterization of the donations of Rs. 1,47,41,000/- (supra) as anonymous donations under Sec. 115BBC of the Act by the A.O, and thus, uphold his order to the said extent. The Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 a/w 3 (to the extent relevant to the present issue) are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

22 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

to have raised loans aggregating to Rs. 2,33,19,000/- (wrongly

mentioned as Rs. 2,33,52,000/-) from the following four persons:

Name & address of the loan creditors & PAN details Amount of loan received during the F.Y.13-14 (As per AO) Sushil Kumar Agrawal 1,05,58,500/- S/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa PAN : ABJPA2065K Mahavir Prasad Agrawal 22,00,000/- S/o Late Shri Gopiram Agrawal, Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa PAN : ABZPA1901E Smt.Mangati Devi Agrawal 1,05,58,500/- W/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal Kantabanji, Balangir, Orissa PAN : ABZPA1902H Smt.Shashikala Agrawal 2,000/- Total 2,33,19,000/- As the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had

failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon it to establish the

identity and credit worthiness of the lenders a/w the genuineness

of the loan transactions in question, therefore, the A.O had held

the entire amount as unexplained cash credits under Sec. 68

r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. On appeal as the assessee was able to

substantiate on the basis of additional documentary evidence the

authenticity of the loan transactions in question, therefore, the

CIT(A) after considering the remand report of the A.O who had

23 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

objected to the admission of the additional evidences vacated the addition that was made by A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act.

(A) Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal : Rs. 1,05,58,500/- On a perusal of the records, it transpires that the assessee had during the year under consideration received from the aforesaid lender an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,05,58,500/- vide an account payee cheque No.369351 on 18.05.2013. As per the confirmation filed by the lender the opening balance as on 01.04.2013 was Rs. 8,90,383/-(Cr.) while for the closing balance on 31.03.2014 was Rs. 98,19,883/-(Cr.). The assessee had repaid an amount of Rs. 16,29,000/- to the aforesaid lender during the year under consideration. As is discernible from the submissions filed by assessee before the CIT(A) the closing balance of Rs. 98,19,883/- (supra) had continued as such till 31.03.2016. Subsequently,

24 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

the assessee had in the immediately succeeding year i.e. in A.Y 2017-18 repaid to the aforesaid lender the entire outstanding amount loan of Rs. 98,19,883/-(supra) vide account payee cheques No. 709179, 709180, 709182 and 709183, dated 19.07.2016. Also, as stated by the assessee before the CIT(A) that as the aforesaid lender, viz. Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal was a promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt in so far his identity was concerned. Apropos the genuineness of the loan transactions in question, it was the claim of the assessee that as the transaction was made through account payee cheques which was duly evidenced from the bank statement and confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same was established to the hilt. Qua the credit worthiness of the lender the assessee had drawn support from the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014. Clarifying the source of the funds out of which the loan had been advanced by the aforesaid lender, it was submitted by the assessee that as the lender had during the year under consideration sold his share of

25 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

agricultural land (50% share) on 18.05.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 2.11 crores which was credited in his bank account, out of which the loan in question was advanced by him to the assessee on the same date i.e. on 18.05.2013. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid contention it was the claim of the assessee that now when it had duly discharged the onus that was cast upon it as regards substantiating the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, there was no justification in drawing adverse inferences and dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, it was the claim of the assessee that now when the department had duly accepted the repayment of loan of Rs. 98,19,883/- by the assessee to the aforesaid lender in the period relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, drawing of adverse inferences as regards the raising of the loan in question was uncalled for.

26 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

now when the assessee on the basis of additional documentary evidences that were filed before the CIT(Appeals) U/rule 46A had substantiated the identity and creditworthiness of the lender, as well as the genuineness of the loan transaction, therefore, the onus cast upon it stood duly discharged. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that though the CIT(Appeals) had in the course of the appellate proceedings forwarded to the AO the additional documentary evidences that were filed by the assessee before him in order to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction in question and had called for his report, however, the AO after examining the said documents only objected to the admission of the same and did not raise any adverse comment as regards the same. Be that as it may, in our considered view though the CIT(Appeals) had afforded sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional documentary evidence that were filed by the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction under consideration, but the AO except for harping on his objection to admission of the said documents had chosen

27 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

not to advance any adverse comments as regards the same. We, thus, find no infirmity in the admission of the additional documentary evidence by the CIT(Appeals), which as observed by us hereinabove was done by him after affording sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the same. Coming back to the merits of the issue in hand, we may herein observe, that stated by the Ld. A.R, and rightly so, now when the lender viz. Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal was a promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt as regards his identity. In so far the genuineness of the loan transaction is concerned, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. A.R. that as the transaction in question was carried out thorough banking channel as is evidenced from the bank statement and confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same was proved beyond doubt. Adverting to the creditworthiness of the lender, it transpires from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had not only placed on record the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014, but had in fact even established the source out of

28 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

which the said lender had advanced the loan to the assessee trust. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid lender, viz. Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal had sold his share of agricultural land (50% share) and had received the sale consideration of Rs. 2.11crores on 18.05.2013 in his bank account, out of which the loan under consideration was advanced to the assessee on the same date i.e on 18.05.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the said claim of the assessee on the basis of any material which would prove otherwise, was not justified in summarily dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, the fact that the entire amount of loan had been repaid by the assessee to the lender by 19.07.2016 further fortifies the aforesaid claim of the assessee of having raised a genuine loan from the aforesaid lender. We, thus, concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs.

29 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

1,05,58,500/- (supra) made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act, uphold the same.

(B) Smt. Mangati Devi Agrawal : Rs. 1,05,58,500/- On a perusal of the records, it transpires that the assessee had during the year under consideration i.e on 18.05.2013 raised vide an account payee cheque an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,05,58,500/-. As per the confirmation filed by the lender the opening balance as on 01.04.2013 was Rs. 18,00,000/- (Cr.) while for the closing balance on 31.03.2014 was Rs. 1,05,58,500/- (Cr.). The assessee had repaid an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the aforesaid lender on 17.05.2013. As is discernible from the submissions filed by assessee before the CIT(A) the closing balance of Rs. 1,05,58,500/- (supra) had continued as such till 31.03.2016, and thereafter in the immediately succeeding year i.e. in A.Y. 2017-18 the whole of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,05,58,500/- (supra) was repaid to the aforesaid lender vide account payee cheques No. 709191, 709190, 709189 and 709188, dated 21.07.2016. Also, as stated

30 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

by the assessee before the CIT(A) that as the aforesaid lender, viz. Smt.Mangati Devi Agrawal was a promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt in so far her identity was concerned. Apropos the genuineness of the loan transactions in question, it was the claim of the assessee that as the transaction was made through account payee cheques which was duly evidenced from the bank statement had duly been confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same was established to the hilt. Qua the credit worthiness of the lender the assessee had drawn support from the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014. Clarifying the source of the funds out of which the loan had been advanced by the aforesaid lender, it was submitted by the assessee that as the lender had during the year under consideration sold her share of agricultural land (50% share) on 18.05.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 2.11 crores which was credited in her bank account, the loan was thereafter advanced by her out of the said funds to the assessee on the same date i.e. on 18.05.2013. Accordingly, it was the claim of

31 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

the assessee that now when it had duly discharged the onus that was cast upon it as regards substantiating the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the A.O in drawing adverse inferences and dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, it was the claim of the assessee that now when the department had duly accepted the repayment of loan of Rs. 1,05,58,500/- by the assessee to the aforesaid lender in the period relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, drawing of adverse inferences as regards the raising of the loan in question was uncalled for.

32 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

further, we may herein observe that though the CIT(Appeals) had in the course of the appellate proceedings forwarded to the AO the additional documentary evidences that were filed by the assessee before him in order to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction in question and had called for his report, however, the AO after examining the said documents only objected to the admission of the same and did not raise any adverse comment as regards the same. Be that as it may, in our considered view though the CIT(Appeals) had afforded sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional documentary evidence that were filed by the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction under consideration, but the AO except for harping on his objection to admission of the said documents had chosen not to advance any adverse comments as regards the same. We, thus, find no infirmity in the admission of the additional documentary evidence by the CIT(Appeals), which as observed by us hereinabove was done by him after affording sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the same. Coming back to the

33 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

merits of the issue in hand, we may herein observe, that as stated by the Ld. A.R, and rightly so, now when the lender, viz. Smt. Mangati Devi Agrawal was a promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt as regards her identity. In so far the genuineness of the loan transaction is concerned, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. A.R. that as the transaction in question was carried out thorough banking channel as was evidenced from the bank statement and had duly been confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same was duly proved. Adverting to the creditworthiness of the lender, it transpires from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had not only placed on record the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014, but had in fact even established the source out of which the said lender had advanced the loan to the assessee trust. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid lender, viz. Smt. Mangati Devi Agrawal had sold her share of agricultural land (50% share) and had received the sale consideration of Rs. 2.11crores on 18.05.2013 in her bank

34 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

account out of which the loan under consideration was advanced to the assessee on 18.05.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the said claim of the assessee on the basis of any material which would prove otherwise was not justified in summarily dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, the fact that the entire amount of loan had been repaid by the assessee to the lender by 21.07.2016 further fortifies the aforesaid claim of the assessee of having raised a genuine loan from the aforesaid lender. We, thus, concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs. 1,05,58,500/- (supra) made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act, uphold the same.

(C) Shri Mahavir Prasad Agrawal : Rs. 22,00,000/-

35 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

On a perusal of the records, it transpires that there was an opening balance of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Cr.) in the account of the aforesaid party (as appearing in the books of account of the assessee) on 01.04.2013. Aforesaid amount was thereafter repaid to the abovementioned person vide account payee cheque on 17.05.2013. Thereafter, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22 lac was received back as a loan vide account payee cheque during the year under consideration and the same was reflected as the closing balance on 31.03.2014. Accordingly, it was the claim of the assessee before the CIT(A) that the aforesaid amount in question was in substance not a fresh loan but merely in the nature of renewal of an old unsecured loan. Closing balance of Rs. 22,00,000/ (supra) in the account of the aforesaid lender continued as such till 31.03.2016, and thereafter in the immediately succeeding year i.e. in A.Y. 2017-18 the whole of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- (supra) was repaid by the assessee to the aforesaid lender vide account payee cheques No. 709194 and 709196, dated 26.07.2016. Also, as stated by the assessee before the CIT(A) that as the aforesaid lender, viz. Shri

36 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal was a promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt in so far his identity was concerned. Apropos the genuineness of the loan transactions in question, it was the claim of the assessee that as the transaction was made through account payee cheque which was duly evidenced from the bank statement and had been confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same was established to the hilt. Qua the credit worthiness of the lender the assessee had drawn support from the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014. Clarifying the source of the funds out of which the loan had been advanced by the aforesaid lender, it was submitted by the assessee that the lender had during the year received back the old loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- on 17.05.2013, and the same was thereafter again advanced by him vide an account payee cheque to the assessee trust, therefore, the source out of which the loan was advanced was established beyond doubt. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid contention it was the claim of the assessee that now when it had duly discharged the onus that was cast

37 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

upon it as regards substantiating the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the A.O in drawing adverse inferences and dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, it was the claim of the assessee that now when the department had duly accepted the repayment of loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- by the assessee to the aforesaid lender in the period relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, drawing of adverse inferences as regards the raising of the loan in question was uncalled for.

38 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

additional documentary evidences that were filed by the assessee before him in order to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction in question and had called for his report, however, the AO after examining the said documents only objected to the admission of the same and did not raise any adverse comment as regards the same. Be that as it may, in our considered view though the CIT(Appeals) had afforded sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional documentary evidence that were filed by the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction under consideration, but the AO except for harping on his objection to admission of the said documents had chosen not to advance any adverse comments as regards the same. We, thus, find no infirmity in the admission of the additional documentary evidence by the CIT(Appeals), which as observed by us hereinabove was done by him after affording sufficient opportunity to the AO to rebut the same. Coming back to the merits of the issue in hand, we may herein observe, that as stated by the Ld. A.R, and rightly so, now when the lender viz. Shri Mahavir Prasad Agrawal was a

39 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

promoter trustee of the assessee trust, therefore, there could be no doubt as regards his identity. In so far the genuineness of the loan transaction is concerned, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. A.R. that as the transaction in question was carried out thorough banking channel as is evidenced from the bank statement and had been confirmed by the lender, therefore, the same stood proved. Adverting to the creditworthiness of the lender, it transpires from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had not only placed on record the copy of the return of income, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet of the lender as on 31.03.2014, but had in fact even established the source out of which the said lender had advanced the loan to the assessee trust. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid lender, viz. Shri Mahavir Prasad Agrawal had during the year received back an outstanding loan of Rs. 22,00,000/-(supra) from the assessee trust on 17.05.2013, and had thereafter on the same date given back the said amount to the assessee trust as a loan. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the claim of the Ld. A.R that the loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- that was advanced by the

40 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

aforesaid lender on 17.05.2013 was in fact a renewal of an old unsecured loan. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the said claim of the assessee on the basis of any material which would prove otherwise was not justified in summarily dubbing the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. Apart from that, the fact that the entire amount of loan had been repaid by the assessee to the lender in the period relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 further fortifies the aforesaid claim of the assessee of having raised a genuine loan from the aforesaid lender. We, thus, concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- (supra) made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act, uphold the same.

(D) Smt. Shashikala Agrawal : Rs. 2,000/-

41 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

On a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it transpires that neither any contentions had been advanced by the assessee as regards proving the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, nor any concrete observation of the CIT(A) justifying the deletion of the said addition that was made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act is discernible from his order. All that the assessee had stated before the CIT(A) is that the position in the case of the aforesaid lender is similar as of the other lenders. In so far the CIT(A) is concerned, we find that he had vacated the said addition on the ground that the confirmation of the aforesaid lender is available on record and the loan in question had been repaid to the assessee. In our considered view as neither the facts justifying the deletion of the aforesaid addition of Rs. 2,000/- are borne out from record, nor any serious attempt had been made on the part of the assessee to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, therefore, we are constrained to uphold the addition to the said extent. We, thus, uphold the addition of Rs. 2,000/- made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 aw 3 (to the extent relevant to the

42 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

issue in hand) are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

43 ITO (Exemption)-1 Vs. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan ITA No. 235/RPR/2019

Date 1 Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order