Income Tax Officer-(Exemptions), Lucknow V. M/s Tathagat Shiksha Samiti, Lucknow

ITA 51/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4437 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV JOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Charitable institution; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 10B; 68; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 51/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW V. M/S THATHAGAT SHIKSHA SAMITI H - 2, PARK ROAD, LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AAATT9582GA (APP ELLA NT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI C.K. SINGH, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJIV JOSHI, C.A. DATE OF HEARING: 2 2 10 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 10 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 4, LUCKNOW DATED 8/12/2015 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LD. CIT(A) - 4, LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,74,35,100/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2 . THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 . THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING NIL INCOME ON 13/9/2010 AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. OUT OF TOTAL DONATIONS RECEIVED OF RS.2,21,00,000/ - , ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE DONATIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS.46,64,900/ - A S GENUINE AND ADDED BACK DONATIONS TO THE TUNE OF ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 2 OF 10 RS.1, 74,35,100/ - ON THE GROUND THAT CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF DONORS REMAINED UNPROVED. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3 . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS THE LD. AR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 1 APPELLANT IS A DULY REGISTERED SOCIETY CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ONLY AND IS DULY REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2 DURING THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 APPELLANT RECE IVED DONATIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,21,00,000/ - . 3 THESE DONATIONS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT SPREAD AND DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION RELATED FACILITIES (CHARITABLE PURPOSES ONLY). 4 APPELLANT ITSELF HAS SHOWN THESE DONATIONS AS INCOME IN ITS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT BECAUSE THESE WERE NOT CORPUS DONATIONS. 5 COMPLETE LIST OF DONORS AND THEIR KNOWN ADDRESS/PAN/ELECTION ID ETC WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ONCE A RECEIPT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME THERE IS NO PROVISION I N THE IN INCOME TAX ACT TO AGAIN GREAT IS AS INCOME U/S 68 AND ANY SUCH ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, BAD IN LAW BUT AGAINST THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TAXATION THAT NO RECEIPT CAN BE TAXED TWICE. 7 THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. HENCE APPELLANT IS EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, A ACT NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 3 OF 10 8 THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WERE DULY AUDITED AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B WAS DULY FILED SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF THESE DONATIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 9 MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY DONORS AND SOME DONORS NOT RESPOND ING TO LETTERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT ENTITLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE. 10 IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAN ONCE DONATIONS ARE RECEIVED AND THEY ARE SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, IT WILL BE DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNLESS THE DONATION WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS CORPUS FUND, AND ONCE IT BECOMES PART OF THE INCOME IT IS CONSIDERED AS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE APPELLANT IS NOT CARRYING ANY NON CHARITABLE ACTIVITI ES. 11 TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE VOLUNTARY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ONLY DISCLOSED ITS DONATIONS AS INCOME, BUT HAD ALSO FURNISHED COMPLET E LIST OF DONORS. 12 SECTION 68B OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACT OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS ITSELF DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS OF RS.2,21,00,000/ - AS ITS INCOME, LEAVING THEREBY NO ROOM FOR MAKING ADDITION ONCE AGAIN UNDER THE GRAB OF SEC 68. 13 THERE WAS, THEREFORE, FULL DISCLOSURE IF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO APPLICATION OF THE DONATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE, SINCE IT WAS GRANTED REGI STRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 14 ONCE THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT U/S 11 THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH OTHER SOURCE OF ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 4 OF 10 INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. EXEMPTION AVAI LABLE U/S 11 WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO AN INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT WOULD BE INCLUDING ANY DEEMED ADDITION MADE U/S 68. IT CANNOT BE A CASE THAT ADDITIONS U/S 68 WOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF EXEMPTION OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, SUCH ADDITION COULD BE HELD TAXABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15 THERE ARE SEVERAL CASE LAWS WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE DONATION AS INCOME, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 68 CANNOT BE APPLIED. ONE OF THE LEADING JUDGMENT IN THIS REGARD IS THAT OF: DIT(EXEMPTIONS) VS. KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (DELHI)278 ITR 152 SHRI. VIVEKANAND EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY ITAT(DELHI) ITA NO. F2592/DEL/2012 SUNDER DEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ACIT ITAT (DELHI) ITA NO . 2428/DEL/2011. 4 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS FOLLOWS: - 7.1 I T HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS THAT ONCE THE RECEIPT/DO N ATION WAS TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, NO ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF I.T . ACT 1961 IS CALLED FOR. 7.2 I N THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN THESE DONATIONS OF RS. 2,21, 00,000/ - AS INCOME IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31,03.2010. COMPLETE LIST OF THE DONORS WITH THEIR NAMES, ADDRESSES ETC WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE SE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES I.E. SPREAD AND DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION RELATED FACILITIES. THUS, IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE WHERE DONATIONS HAVE ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 5 OF 10 BEEN TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. WITH S UCH CLEAR CUT FACTS, THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF IT. ACT 1961 IS NOT CALLED FOR. 7.3 THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CRYSTALLISED IN DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH A IN ITA NO. 776/LKW/2014 IN CASE OF ITO - II(3), LUCKNOW VS. M/S SA RASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE OUST FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2015 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - 'HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED DONATION FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CREDITWORTHINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MA D E THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME HAVING OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE RECEIPT WAS TAKEN TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE CIRCULARS AND VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER OF THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: - '4. I HAVE CONSIDE RED THE MATTER/ THE APPELLANT TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF T HE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS OF RS. 2,09,41,0007/ - HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT TRUST AS INCOME IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOU NT OF ONE OF ITS DIVISIONS, THEREFORE, FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSES AN D ALSO APPLICATION OF THE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACT IVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE, SINCE IT WAS DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 A. [PARA 11 ] FOR THE AFORESAID REAS ONS, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF - LAW AROSE FROM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE DISMISSED, [PARA 12] THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS CONCURRED WITH THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, GHAZIABAD VS. UTTRANCHAL WELFARE SOCIETY,, [2014] 42 TAXMANN.COM 361(AII.) IN WHICH IT ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 6 OF 10 HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE, DELHI HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED DONATIONS AS ITS INCOME. IT WAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ALL RECEIPTS, OTHER THAN CORPUS DONATIONS, WOULD BE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THERE IS FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE DONATION FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE AND THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER S ECT I ON 12A IS CONTINUING AND VALID, EXEMPTIONS CANNOT BE DENIED, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING VOLUNTARY DONATIONS OF RS. 1,66,30,000/ - RECEIVED FROM NINE PERSONS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AS SECTION 68 HAS NO AP PLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE IMPUGNED CASE. 4.1 I ALSO FIND THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THEM. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AND REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO IT IS NOTED THAT ADDITION U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON MERE SUSPICION WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRIES AND BRINGING MATERIAL EVIDEN CE ON RECORD WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED LARGE NUMBER OF DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THEM WHICH IS LISTED IN THE TABLE FURNISHED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. IN DHAKESHW ARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT, 2 6 ITR 775 (SC), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT AN ITO IN NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE S USPICION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION O F RS.1,66,30,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SO FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT ONCE DONATION RECEIVED WAS TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, PROVISONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. SINCE WE DO ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 7 OF 10 NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE SAME AS HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER.' 7.4 TH US, THE JURISDICTI ONAL HON'BLE I TAT, LUCKNOW A BENCH AND VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ONCE DONATION RECEIVED WAS TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE PROVISIONS OF SEC 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. 7.5 IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF HON'BLE LUCKNOW ITAT BENCH'S DECISION DATED 17.06.2015 ( AS REPRODUCED ABOVE) IT IS HELD THAT ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,35,100/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS HEREBY DELETED. 7.6 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALL OWED. 5 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED, SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE DONATIONS WERE NOT APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND FURTHER IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE DONORS WERE NOT PROVED AND THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY A ND GENUINENESS OF SUCH DONATIONS, THE SAME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6 . THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTTARANCHAL WELFARE SOCIETY [2014] 364 ITR 398 (ALL.); HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTIONS) VS. KESHAV SOCIAL. & CHARITABLE TRUST, 278 ITR 152 (DEL.) AND THE ORDER OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(3), LUCKNOW VS. SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST IN ITA NO.776/LKW/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 8 OF 10 SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED DONATION AS INCOME , SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A PPLIED , MORE SO BECAUSE THESE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF FORM 10B ALONG WITH RELEVANT ANNEXURE WHICH INCLUDED SCHEDULE A OF FIXED ASSETS AS ON 31/3/2011 WHEREIN EXPE NSES HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN THAT DONATIONS WERE UTILIZED FOR ENHANCEMENT OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPRISED THE BENCH ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A DONATION CAN BE CALLED AS ANONYMOUS DONATION AND IF IT IS ANONYMOUS DONATION, THEN IT HAS TO BE TAXED. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC(3) CLEARLY STATES THAT ANONYMOUS DONATION MEANS ANY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB - CLAUSE (2A) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 WHERE A PERSON RECEIVING SUCH CONTRIBUTION DOES NOT MAINTAIN RECORD OF IDENTITY INDICATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF SUCH PERSON MAKING SUCH CONTRIBUTION. THEREFORE, THERE HAS TO BE A RECORD OF IDENTITY INDICATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON MAKIN G DONATION, THEN IT WILL BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF ANONYMOUS DONATION. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED AND GIVEN THE LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS MAKING CONTRIBUTION, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, THESE DONATIONS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. FURTHER, ONCE INCOME EXEMPTED AND DONATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS INCOME OF THE TRUST AND THEY ARE NOT ANONYMOUS IN NATURE AND SINCE HAVE BEEN UTILIZ ED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS EVIDENT FROM FORM 10B AND RELEVANT ANNEXURE, THEREFORE, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 7 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONT ENTIONS AND FROM RECORDS IT IS CERTAIN THAT DONATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST AND THEY WERE UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 9 OF 10 THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. WE HAVE PERUSED FORM 10B ALONG WITH RELEVANT ANNEXURE AND HAVE BEEN SEEN T HAT EXPENSES FOR WHICH DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY FOR FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE PURPOSES. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED A PART OF DONATIONS RECEIVED AS ANONYMOUS DON ATIONS BUT HAS MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 O F THE ACT. FROM VARIOUS CASE LAWS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT ONCE A TRUST HAVING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT DECLARES DONATION RECEIVED AS INCOME , WHICH IS USED FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSE AND THOSE DONATIONS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS IN NATURE, THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 115BBC(3) , IT IS CLEAR THAT LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED TWO CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED SO THAT A DONATION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS ANONYMOUS IN NATURE I.E. (1) NAME AND (2) ADDRESS OF THE DONOR HAS TO BE MAINTAINED AS A RECORD OF IDENTITY AND NO FURTHER LEGAL OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED THE N AME AND ADDRESS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 34 TO 45 STATING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS MAKING DONATIONS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC(3) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 8 . THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THESE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE I.E. SPREAD AND DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION RELATED FACILITIES. THUS, IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE WHERE DONA TIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. WITH SUCH CLEAR CUT FACTS, T HE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT CALLED FOR . THE LD. CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(3), LUCKNOW VS. SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) WHICH IN TURN HAS ITA NO.51/LKW/2016 PAGE 10 OF 10 REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTTARANCHAL WELFARE SOCIETY (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED DONATIONS AS ITS INCOME AND WHERE IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ALL RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 9 . THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE, THERE IS NO CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC(3) OF THE ACT AND THE DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, AS HELD BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THAT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED. 10 . IN T HE R ESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 / 10 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD OCTO BER , 201 8 JJ: 2210 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RES PONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR