Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Mesars Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Trust, ... on 12 November, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH "A", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.809/LKW/2017
Assessment Year 2012-13
DCIT (Exemptions), Vs M/s Surabhi Shodh Sasthan Trust,
T.C. 46V, 5th Floor, UPSIDC Ltd., B-27/75, Ravindrapuri,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Varanasi 221 001
Lucknow
PAN AABTS 3312 E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri C.K. Singh, DR
Respondent by Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate
Date of hearing 02/11/2018
Date of pronouncement 12/11/2018
ORDER
PER A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is Department's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, taking the following grounds:
"1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.3,64,59,297/- ignoring the fact that the assessee could not submit the name, full postal address and PAN/other Id during the assessment proceeding.
2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the A.O. be restored;
3. Appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal."
2. The AO treated anonymous donations of Rs.3,64,59,297/- received by the assessee society, as income of the assessee u/s 115BBC(1) of the 2 ITA No. 809/Lkw/2017 I.T. Act. While doing so, the A.O. noted that certain donations did not mention the complete addresses of the donees and the A.O. treated such donations as anonymous donations, as complete records of identity indicating the names and addresses of such persons was not maintained by the assessee society as provided under sub section 3 of Section 115BBC of the Act. The A.O. noticed that the office copy of the receipts issued by the society contained name of the donor and the city. It was also mentioned in the assessment order that notices issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act at the addresses of the some of the donor were received back unserved due to incomplete address. The A.O. noticed that such anonymous cash donations were as under:
(i) Delhi Rs. 2,49,98,520/-
(ii) Varanasi Rs. 70,82,913/-
(iii) Rs.9,73,670/-
Rs, 4,99,143/-
Lucknow
(iv) Mirzapur Rs. 3,79,951/-
(V) Radha Krishna Rs. 25,25,100/-
Chunar
Total Rs. 3,64,59,297/-
3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, bringing the department in appeal before us.
4. Heard. The assessee society is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. It is running a Gaushala. It is a charitable and religious trust. 3 ITA No. 809/Lkw/2017
5. Section 115 BBC(1) of the Act provides for the taxation of anonymous donations received by an assessee on behalf of any university or other educational institution, or any hospital or other institution, or any fund or institution, as referred to in the said section. Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act mandates that the provisions of Section 115BB(1) shall not apply to any anonymous donation received by 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.
6. It remains undisputed that the assessee is neither any university nor other educational institution, or any hospital or other institution, or any fund or institution, or any trust or institution, as referred to in Section 115BBC(1) of the Act. It is also not disputed that the assessee is a trust created and established wholly for religious and charitable purposes. It is further not disputed that no anonymous donation was received by the assessee with a specific direction that such donation was for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by the assessee society.
4ITA No. 809/Lkw/2017
7. Therefore, from the above relevant provisions of the Act itself, it is clear that it is not the provisions of Section 115BBC(1), but those of Section 115BBC(2), which are applicable to the present case. Therefore, at the very outset, the AO had erred in making the addition by invoking the provisions of Section 115BB(1). The assessee's activity of running of a Gaushala is a religious activity, as held in 'Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Bombay Panjrapole Trust', 232 Taxman 821 (Bom), wherein, their Lordships followed 'Vallabh Das Karson Das Natha vs. CIT', 15 ITR 32 (Bom.) and 'CIT vs. Swastik Textile Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.', 113 ITR 852 (Guj.). It was held that anonymous donation received by a trust running a Gaushala, which is a religious activity, is covered under the exception contained in Section 115BBC and accordingly, it is not taxable.
8. In 'Pat. Ram Chandra Shukla Vs. Shree Mhahdeoji, Mahabir Ji and Harrat Ali, Kanpur' (1969) 3 SCC 700, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no line of demarcation in the Hindu system between religion and charity and thus, religious purpose also includes such type of activity.
9. Then Again, in 'DCIT Vs. All India Pingalwara Charitable Society', (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 338 (Amr. Bench), authored by one of us, the Vice President, it has been held that anonymous donations to wholly religious and charitable trusts, without any specific direction having been given for any hospital/institution run by the trust cannot be taxed. 5 ITA No. 809/Lkw/2017
10. The Ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration the above facts and law and has, in our considered opinion, correctly deleted the addition wrongly made. The department has not been able to show otherwise. The only grievance raised is that while deleting the addition, the ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee could not submit the name, full postal address and PAN/ other I.D. of the donors during the assessment proceeding. However, this argument is of no consequence. The donations in question being anonymous donations, providing these details would have amounted to an impossibility for the assessee and it is well settled that the law does not compel anyone to do that which they cannot possibly perform. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia ['LIC Vs. CIT', 219 ITR 410 (SC)]. Section 115BBC(1) taxes anonymous donations, whereas Section 115BBC(2) provides the exceptions to such taxation. The assessee's case, as correctly held by the ld. CIT(A), clearly falls under Section 115BBC(2).
11. In view of the above, finding no merit in the grievance sought to be raised by the department, the same is hereby rejected. The order under appeal is well versed. The same is confirmed.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2018) Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain) Accountant Member Vice President Dated: 12/11/2018 Aks - 6 ITA No. 809/Lkw/2017 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order ASSISTANT REGISTRAR