Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The A.O. observed that all donation letters totaling 6584 in number furnished by the assessee trust were in the same format and each letter carried names of 3-4 villagers who were claimed to be the donors. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that in each case name of village , Taluka , District is given but complete address is not given and claim of the assessee cannot be verified in the absence of address. It was also observed that none of the letters bear PAN of the donors as claimed by the assessee trust. Under these circumstances, the A.O. rejected these direction letters as an evidence in support of identity and address of donors as mandated u/s 115BBC of 19611 Act and held that exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act is not admissible to the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the receipts which were claimed to be treated as voluntary contribution are liable to be taxed u/s 115 BBC of 1961 Act as anonymous donations. The A.O. after going through the object clauses of the assessee trust observed that the assessee trust is not a religious trust . The A.O. held that the assessee failed to establish the identity and address of donors and the AO invoked provisions of section 115 BBC of the Act and denied exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of 1961 Act and taxed the same under section 115BBC of 1961 Act.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22-03-2013 passed by the DDIT (Exemption)-1(1) i.e. the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the third party verification of donors was not possible by the A.O. due to incomplete identity and address of the donors which was vague and general . The ld.CIT(A), therefore, held that the corpus donations of Rs. 2,42,26,508/- received by the assessee trust during the year was assessee's income in the absence of identity and address of the donors being not verifiable as genuineness of the transaction remained unproved , and hence the same could not be considered as corpus donation , thus keeping in view provisions of Section 13(7) of 1961 Act , the said anonymous donations are liable to be taxed u/s 115 BBC of the Act . Similarly, the AO denied the exemption amount of Rs. 1,35,70,000/- as the assessee has not specified the reason for exercise of such unutilized amount of income, which is mandatory and in the instant case the assessee failed to specify the reasons for accumulation of income . The option given in the opinion of learned CIT(A) was general reasons and are not a specified reasons as plans of the proposed expenditure were not finalized and hence it is an unspecified accumulation for uncertain/contingent project which is not in fulfillment of notice in form no. 10 of the Act Madhavi Raksha Sankalp Assessment Year-2010-11 prescribed in this behalf. In nutshell, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions, vide appellate orders dated 10-02-2014 passed by learned CIT(A).

7. The ld. D.R. relied on the orders of authorities below.

8. We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee- trust is registered u/s 12A of 1961 Act with DIT(E) , Mumbai bearing No. TR/25225 and also registered with Charity Commissioner , Mumbai. We have observed that the assessee has shown additions to corpus donations to the tune of Rs. 2,42,26,508/- . The assessee has submitted in paper book filed with the tribunal copies of some of such direction letters of donation issued by the donors whereby instructions are issued by the donors that the donations shall form part of the corpus of the trust. The said letters of donations are placed in paper book page 35-123. The names of the donors were given in the said letters but the addresses and PAN of the donors were not given. These are standard letters which are identical for all the donors. The said letters contained the name of village/taluka/district and State of the donor but the addresses, Madhavi Raksha Sankalp Assessment Year-2010-11 father's name and PAN of the donors are not there. Another peculiar feature is that it is a common direction letter issued by multiple donors ranging from 2-5 donors and Demand draft/Pay order mentioned in said common donation letter are also same being consolidated amount covered for the donation in the said letter as donated by 2-5 donors. We find that assessee is not a religious trust hence the amount is hit by provisions of Section 115 BBC of the Act and the onus is on the assessee to prove that it is covered by exceptions to chargeability to tax as is provided by provisions of Section 115BBC of 1961 Act, namely that the assessee maintained a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed or else it is a religious trust. Section 115BBC of 1961 Act is reproduced hereunder: