Ideal Welfare Society, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

ITA 133/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 13323714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.133/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - 2(1), LUCKNOW. VS IDEAL WELFARE SOCIETY, R - 5, NEHRU ENCLAVE, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAATI4213K (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAHUL KHARE, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 17/09/2014 DATE OF HEARING 11 /11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 10/10/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 20 10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX DONATION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,11,800/ - AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IS NOT ONLY BAD IN LAW BUT ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.5,11,800/ - WHICH IS AGAINST THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PA RA 4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 4. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO ADDITION OF RS.5,11,800/ - OUT OF DONATION RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR WHEREAS THE FULL DONATIONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME OF T HE SOCIETY. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION STATING THAT THE DONATION OF RS.5,11,800/ - HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM 333 PERSONS IN CASH, THE AMOUNT OF DONATIONS BEING RS.1,000/ - , RS.1,100/ - , RS.2,000/ - OR RS.2,100/ - . THE AO FOUND THAT NEITHER THE LIST OF DONORS NOR THE DONATION RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARS THE VERIFIABLE IDENTITY OF THE SAID DONORS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE IDENTITY DETAILS OF THE DONORS DESPITE AFFORDING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO IT. THE AO CONCLU DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE DONATIONS OF RS.5,11,800/ - AS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY CATEGORIZED THE SAME AS ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE ACT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON PAGES 1 TO 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE PHOTOCOPY OF LIST OF DONO RS ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTION) VS KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION [2005] 278 ITR 152 (DEL). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A TR IBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOCIAL ACTION FOR RURAL EDUCATION HEALTH AND LOVING LIFE OF ABUNDANCE SOCIETY VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX IN I.T.A. NO.761/HYD/2012 DATED 14/02/2014. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. RELIANCE WA S ALSO PLACED ON ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO(E) - I(1) MUMBAI VS. BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE IN I.T.A. NO.5714/MUM/2010 DATED 25/07/2012. THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. 3 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC WERE INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2007. AS PER SUB SECTION (3) OF THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN THE R ECORDS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS AND PERSON MAKING SUCH CONTRIBUTION AND SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. NO OTHER PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED EXCEPT NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN THE COMPLETE RECORDS OF NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBUTOR/DONOR. AS PER THE PAPER BOOK OF 53 PAGES, THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ARE SERIAL NUMBER, NAME, FATHERS NAME, PAN, DATE, AMOUNT, NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND THERE IS NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE AS PER THESE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN PAPER BOOK. ADMITTEDLY, BELOW THE NAME OF FATHER, SOME REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE REGARDING PLACE IN VERY BRIEF. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SUCH REFERENCE OF PLACES IN VERY BRIEF SUCH AS LUCKNOW, CHOWK LUCKNOW ETC. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBU TOR. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 THE FIRST JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTION) VS KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 91 - 92. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC WERE INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2007. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7.2 THE SECOND JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOCIAL ACTION FOR RURAL 4 EDUCATION HEALTH AND LOVING LIFE OF ABUNDANCE SOCIETY VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, A CLEA R FINDING IS GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED RECORDS OF THE DONATIONS WITH RELEVANT DETAILS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE DONORS WITH ADDRESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DETAILS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT CONTAIN THE ADDRESS OF THE DONORS AND THEREFORE , THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7.3 THE SECOND TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO(E) - I(1) MUMBAI VS. BOMBAY PAN JRAPOLE (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS PER PARA 9 TO 13 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES. 10. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CIT(A) THAT THE PURPORT AND PURPOSE FOR BRINGING IN SECTION 115BBC IS TO CURB THE INFLUX OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS TRUSTS AND CERTAINLY NOT T O CURB ANY AND ALL TYPES OF DONATIONS / OFFERINGS EITHER IN TEMPLES, MUTHS AND RELIGIOUS TRUSTS, WHERE THE COLLECTIONS ARE COLLECTED IN DONATION BOXES AND THAT TOO RANGING FROM AS LOW AS RS.10/ - TO RS.150/ - . 11. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING VETERINARY HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT OF WOUNDED AND SICK ANIMALS AND BIRDS. IF WE STRICTLY ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DR, THEN WE MUST ALSO ACCEPT SITUATIONS WHERE WE WILL FIND WOUNDED AND DEAD ANIMALS ON THE ROADS, IN OPEN, AND AT HOUSES, ROTTING, SPREADING FOUL SMELL AND DISEASES. THEREFORE, ACCORDINGLY, THE DR WOULD ACCEPT A SITUATION LIKE THIS. WE FIND THAT THIS TRUST HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THE LAST 176 YEARS, DOING AND PERFORMING A PUBLIC GOOD AND SERVICE TO HUMANITY WITH SIN CERE AND GOOD INTENTIONS, NOT EVEN ASKING PEOPLE TO 5 MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS. WHATEVER CONTRIBUTIONS BY WAY OF DONATIONS ARE COMING, ARE COMING IN SMALL DONATIONS, WHICH ARE PUT BY PUBLIC AT LARGE IN DONATION BOXES (DHARMAU). WE ALSO FIND THAT APPROXIMATELY RS. 21 LAKHS CAME AS KNOWN DONATIONS, WHICH WERE DULY TAKEN CARE IN THE RETURN AND INFORMED TO THE REVENUE. 12. WE ALSO CANNOT IGNORE THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO EARLIER, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, WAS A PUBLIC TRUST AND DONATIONS WERE EXEMPTED U/S 52 OF BOMBAY TRUST ACT. WE ALSO CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT EVEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THE STATUS AND SERVICE RENDERED TO HUMANITY AND ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE TILL THE PRECEDING YEAR. 13. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSISTENT APPROACH FROM THE DEPARTMENT, WE DO NOT INTEND TO DEVIATE FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND HOLD THE SAME TO BE CORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW AND FACTS. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING VETERINARY HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT OF WOUNDED AND SICK ANIMALS AND BIRDS. AS PER THE FACTS NOTED IN PARA 4 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE DONATIONS WERE RANGING BETWEEN RS.10/ - TO RS.15/ - ONLY PER DONOR WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS PROJECTS FOR WHICH GRANTS WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN RESPECT OF DONATION IN THE RANGE OF RS.1,000/ - TO RS.2,100/ - . IN THAT CASE, DONATION OF RS.10/ - AND RS.15/ - WAS RECEIVED IN DONATION BOXES WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT I S NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH DONATION OF RS.1,000/ - TO RS.2,110/ - HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY COLLECTION IN DONATION BOXES. BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES IN FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6 9. AS PER A BOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (S UNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /11/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR