RASTRIYA CHETNA COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, DEHRADUN V. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

ITA 2931/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7289 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIT
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 56; 11; 12AA; 143(2)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 ( A .Y 2015-16) RASTRIYA CHETNA COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, CA, L-7, A (LGF), SOUTH EXTENSION, PART -2 NEW DELHI AAATR9828H (APPELLANT) VS ITO (EXEMPTION) 13-A, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJ KUMAR, CA, SH. SUNIT GOEL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27/02/2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)- DEHRADUN, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BOTH THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN TREATING THE T RANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR RS.48,12,000/- WRONGLY AS VOLUNTRARY C ONTRIBUTION OF DONATION AND CONSEQUENTIALLY BY CALCULATING THE AMOUNT SHORT APPLIED (SHORT OF 85%) AT RS.87,55,232/- AND IN TAXING THE SAME. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AGAIN ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IN ADO PTING THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,11,12,000/- AS THE AMOUNT OF VOLU NTARY CONTRIBUTION OF DONATION AND IN CONSEQUENTIALLY TAXING THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF FIGURE OF RS. DATE OF HEARING 27.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.01.2019 2 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 1,11,12,000/- AGAINST THE FIGURE OF RS.48,12,000/-, MORE SO, SEC. 56 (1 ) (VII) WAS APPLICABLE IN A.Y.2015-16 ONLY IN CASE OF RECIPIENTS OF PROPERTY ONLY BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF. ALL ASSESSES STOOD COVERED ONLY W.E.F. 01.04.17 VIDE SEC.56 (1) (X) OF THE ACT. 2.1. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND REBUTTAL, THE APPARE NT FIGURE OF RS.48,12,000/- CANNOT BE TAKEN AT ENHA NCED FIGURE OF RS.1,11,12,000/-. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EVEN ON HOLDING THE PROPERTY AS A CASE OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OF DONATION, THE FULL VALUE OF PROPERTY SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF PROPERTY, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION BEING MORE THAN 85% OF THE SAID AMOUNT, IT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX. 3. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN VIDE OR DER DATED 29.09.2006. THE SOCIETY IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR O F THE SOCIETY VIDE REGISTRATION NO. 1104/2003-04 DATED 30.01.2004 WHICH WAS RENEWED . THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME WAS FILED ON 27.09.2015. THE C ASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY FOR EXAMINATION OF ISSUES TRANSACTION OF TRUST WITH SPECIFIED PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED ON 26.07.2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOT ICES ISSUED, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED R EPLIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED IN FORM NO. 10B, THE AUDITOR MENTIONED THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PAID SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 48,12,000/- TO THE SELLERS AND THE SAME ARE STILL OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2015. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT AGAINST LAND AT RS. 5,68,800/- ONLY AND WAS CATEGORIZED AS NET PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THA T IN THE BALANCE SHEET NO DETAIL OF SUCH ASSET WAS BOOKED NEITHER THE VALUE O F ASSET PURCHASED NOT THE LIABILITY TOWARDS ITS COST. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE DEED AND LAND WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE SOCIETY AFTER PAY ING 48,12,000/- IN RESPECT OF 3 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 LAND AT MAUZA MANDUWALA, DEHRADUN FROM SMT. SUSHILA DEVI. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT ARE AS UNDER: I. RS. 10,00,000/- VIA CHEQUE NO. 671141 DATED 14.0 9.2015 PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, GARHI CANTT, DEHRADUN II. RS. 10,00,000/- VIA CHEQUE NO. 671142 DATED 14. 09.2015 PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, GARHI CANTT, DEHRADUN III RS. 10,00,000/- VIA CHEQUE NO. 671143 DATED 14. 09.2015 PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, GARHI CANTT, DEHRADUN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAIL OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SUSHILA DEVI WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SAID CHEQUES WERE NOT PRE SENTED TO THE BANK FOR PAYMENT. STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY AND ONE OF THE SELLER SMT. SUSHILA AGARWAL WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SUBMITTED ITS REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE SELLER SMT. SUSHI LA DEVI STATED THAT THEY NEVER PRESENTED THE CHEQUES IN BANK FOR PAYMENT OF SALE C ONSIDERATION AND HAVE NOT ENFORCED THE PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY FILIN G SUIT IN ANY COURT TILL THAT DATE. AS NO FRESH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE SELLERS AFT ER THE CHEQUES LOST ITS VALIDITY, THE LIABILITY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ALSO VANISHED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY REDUCED ITS LIABILITY TO NIL IN TH E INDIVIDUAL LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SMT. SUSHILA DEVI WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER OF LAND & BUILDING ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE SELLER AS THE CHEQUES OF RS. 48,12,000/- WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY I N FAVOUR OF THE SELLERS ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. THE ASSESSING O FFICER TREATED THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,11,12,000/- AS VOLUNTARY DONATION TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 5. BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE TREATING OF THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES OF LAND AS VOLUNTARY CONTR IBUTION IN THE FORM OF DONATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AND REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING :- 18. I HAVE CONSIDERED THIS MATTER AND I AM INCLINE D TO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE SALE WAS REGISTERED IN SEPTEMBER, 2014 AND CHEQUES DATED 14.09.2015 WERE HANDED OVER TO TH E SELLER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 26.12.2017 AND TILL THAT DATE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PASSED FROM THE HAND S OF THE BUYER TO THE SELLER. BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER HAVE RENDERED BEFORE THE AO WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEIR INTENTION WAS NOT TO ENTER INTO SALE BUT SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED MERELY BECAU SE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PERMISSION WAS RECEIVED FROM TH E STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SALE DEED ON RECORD, THE AO AND THE TAX AUTHORITY ARE WELL WITHI N THEIR RIGHTS TO EXAMINE THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDE AS TO WHAT IS THE ACTUAL NATURE OF ANY TRANSACTION. IN THIS CASE, ME RELY REGISTERING THE SALE DEED WITH NO SALE CONSIDERATION HAVING PASSED EVEN TILL DATE GIVES RISE TO A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ASS ESSEE AND THE SUPPOSED SELLER HAVE ARRANGED THEIR AFFAIRS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THEY HAVE MERELY COMPLIES WITH THE PERMISSION OF TH E STATE GOVERNMENT INFORMED BUT IN SPIRIT THEY HAVE ACTUALL Y TRANSFERRED THE LAND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. 19. THE NEXT POINT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAKES IS THAT THE AMOUNT PROMISED IN THE FUTURE IS A FUTURE CONSIDERATION IS VALID AGAINST TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE AL SO SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECOVERABLE BY THE SELLER WITHIN 3 YEARS . WHILE, IT IS TRUE THAT THE FUTURE CONSIDERATION IS VALID, BUT TH E CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SO FAR LEADS ONE TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUS ION THAT THIS CONSIDERATION WILL ONLY PASS HANDS AND THIS TRANSAC TION IS ACTUALLY A DONATION BY THE LAND HOLDERS TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIET Y. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO . 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED HIS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES I.E., THE SAL E DEED WITH REGARD TO THE PLOT WAS REGISTERED AND WHICH WAS NOT CANCELLED SO FAR A ND THAT THE PAYMENT AGAINST SUCH SALE DEED WAS MADE BY POST-DATED CHEQU ES THOUGH THE SAME WERE NOT ENCASHED. HE, HOWEVER, STATED THAT THE SELLER HAS A RIGHT TO RECOVER THE 5 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 AMOUNT FROM THE BUYER. BUT, ON A QUESTION FROM THE BENCH, HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT EVEN TILL DATE, NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER. 7. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE STATED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE SUBSTANC E IS TO BE LOOKED INTO AND NOT THE FORM. HE STATED THAT THE SELLER HAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHE INTENDED TO DONATE THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST BUT SINCE THE PERMISSION FOR DONATION WAS NOT RECEIVED, SHE S OLD THE PROPERTY. THUS, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IS CLEAR. THOUGH THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAID BY POST-DATED CHEQUES WERE NEVER PRESENTED FOR ENCASHMENT BY THE SELLER. THE CHEQUES WERE ALLOWED TO BE LAPSED AND THEREAFTER NO CLAIM IS MADE BY THE SELLE R FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS ONLY THE DONATION OF THE PLOT WHICH WAS GIVEN T HE FORM OF SALE DEED BECAUSE THE PERMISSION OF THE GIFT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SELLER INITIALLY WANTED TO GIFT THE SAID PLOT OF LAND TO THE ASSESSE E TRUST. SINCE PERMISSION OF GIFT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED. THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS PURPORTEDL Y PAID BY POST-DATED CHEQUES WHICH WERE NEVER PRESENTED FOR ENCASHMENT. THEREAFTER, THE SELLER DID NOT CLAIM THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERAT ION. IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE AMOUNT IS NOT SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO THE SELLER OF THE LAND. THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF PLOT OF LAND IS IN SUBSTANCE THE GIFT WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN THE FORM OF SALE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IT IS IN EFFECT THE 6 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 DONATION OF THE PLOT BY THE ALLEGED SELLER TO THE A SSESSEE TRUST. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY ADOPTED THE VALUE AS PER CIRCLE RAT E AT RS.1,11,12,000/-. IN THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION IS RS.48,12,000/-. THE CIRCL E RATE VALUATION IS RS. 1,11,12,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE END OF ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONED FOR ADOPTING CIRCLE RATE AT RS. 1,11,12,0 00/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY (AOP) AND NOT AN IND IVIDUAL OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (HUF). SEC.56 (2) (VII) PROVIDED FOR ADOPTIN G CIRCLE RATE IN CASE OF PURCHASER / DONEE. HOWEVER THIS SECTION IS APPLICAB LE ONLY WHERE THE PURCHASER / DONEE ASSESSEE IS EITHER INDIVIDUAL OR HUF. THE SCOPE OF THIS PROVISION GOT ENLARGED BY INCLUDING ALL PERSONS (IN CLUDING AOP) ONLY FOR TRANSACTIONS WHICH TAKES PLACE ON OR AFTER 01.04.20 17 VIDE SEC.56 (1) (X) INSERTED IN THE STATUE VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2017, W.E.F. 01.04.2017. FURTHER, EVEN W.E.F. 01.04.2017 IT IS NOT APPLICABLE ON EDUCATION AL INSTITUTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SEC.56 (1) (X) PROVISO (VIII). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT W ITHOUT REFERRING TO DVO AND WITHOUT ANY SCN, THE APPARENT CONSIDERAT ION CANNOT BE DISTURBED, MORE SO, WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHO W THAT APPARENT CONSIDERATION IS NOT THE REAL CONSIDERATION. 10. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED CIRCLE RATE O F PROPERTY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS OR FINDINGS TO THAT EXTENT BY SIMPLY HO LDING THAT THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,11,12,000/- AND TREATED IT AS VOLUNTARY DONATION TO THE ASSESSE E SOCIETY. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED TR UST UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. BY ADOPTING THE CIRCLE RATE O F PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING 7 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 OFFICER APPLIED SECTION 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE TRUST IN THE PARTICULAR SCENARIO WHEN THE SECTION 56 (2)(VII) IS APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUALS AN D HUF ONLY. BESIDES SECTION 56 (2)(X) WILL ALSO BE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAME IS W .E.F. 01.04.2017 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US IS A.Y. 2015-16. IN FACT, SECTION 56(2)(X) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY INVOKED SECTION 56 OF THE ACT AND WRONGLY A DOPTED CIRCLE RATE OF PROPERTY IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EVEN IN CASE OF DONATION, WHATEVER VALUE OF PROPERT Y IS TAKEN, IT SHOULD BE HELD AS BEING APPLIED IN THE SAME YEAR. THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE VALUE IN KIND CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED TH E VALUE OF ALLEGED DONATION AT RS. 1,11,12,000/- AS PER CIRCLE RATE AND BY HOLD ING THE NON APPLICATION OF DONATION AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 85%, HELD RS.87,55 ,232/- AS TAXABLE, AS PER CALCULATIONS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOT A CASE OF DONATION BUT CASE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, EV EN IF CONSIDERED AS A CASE OF DONATION, THEN IT IS NOT CASH /CHQ. BUT LAND ON WHICH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. HENCE UNDER THE FACTS, THE VA LUE OF THE LAND SHOULD BE DEEMED AS HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THE CAUSES OF SOCIET Y IN THE SAME YEAR AND IMMEDIATELY ON ITS RECEIPT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE VALUE OF THE LAND, BEING IN KIND UNDER THE FACTS, CANNOT BE APPLIED FO R PURPOSES OF SOCIETY IN ANY OTHER MANNER. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI SACHYAYA MATAJI TRUST OSIAN, JODHPUR ( JODHPUT ITAT ORDER DTD.09.05.14 IN ITA NO.538/JODH/2013). 13. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS WE HAVE DISMISSED GROUND NO . 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IT AMOUNTS TO DONATION WHICH IS RECEIVED IN KIND I.E. IN PROPERTY. THE 8 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE CIRCLE RATE TO TH E LAND WHICH IS ALSO NOT AS PER LAW AND WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL. IN FACT, THE REVENUES CASE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LAND WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION WHICH AMOUNTS TO DONATION/GIFT. THE LD. AR RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBNAL IN CASE OF SHRI SACHYAYA MATAJI TRUST OSIAN , JODHPUR (SUPRA) WHICH IS AN APT DECISION IN PRESENT ASSESSEE SOCIETYS CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE DON ATION IN KIND I.E. LAND AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE APPLIED, ACCUMULATED OR INVES TED, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME. THE DONATION RECEIVED IN KIND DI D NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INCOME U/S 2(24) OF THE ACT, THEREFOR E, IT COULD NOT BE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST U/S 12(1) OF THE ACT AND THE ACCEPTANC E OF DONATION IN KIND DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF INCOME U/S 2(24)(IIA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ) IS NOT CORRECT AND WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL. 15. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 10/01/2019 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO. 2931/DEL/2018 DATE OF DICTATION 28.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 10.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 10.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 10.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 10.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 10.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER