Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.2. Without prejudice, even otherwise, the alleged assertion of the party in the statement denying the fact of making the donation stood vitiated by other evidence on record, the party himself not disputing the donation to the appellant Trust of his own funds and under his own direction.

2. That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25 lacs as corpus donation received by means of account payee cheque from Shri Piyush Jain in utter disregard to the confirmatory letter dated 24-02-2006 forwarding the donation containing details of payment of cheque and details of bank account number and branch as also the appellant's request for summoning the party and the requisite information from his bank account.

3.2. AO further found that assessee has claimed a further corpus donation of Rs. 25 lacs received from one Shri Piyush Jain by a/c payee cheque. On assessee's request summons u/s 131 were issued on him who did not appear. Assessee thereafter vide letter dated 26-12-2008 submitted that Piyush Jain was abroad and therefore he could not be produced. AO, however, held that the donation was unexplained and accorded added this amount also u/s 68 of the Act.

10. Apropos ground 7 of the assessee before CIT(A) in respect of corpus donation of Rs 25/- from Piyush Jain, following facts and arguments were submitted: The appellant trust received a donation of Rs. 25 lacs as corpus donation by way of account payee cheuqe from one Shri Piyush Jain was duly filed. Copy of account payee cheque signed by Shri Piyush Jain confirmation drawn on Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank was also filed by the appellant. The learned AO, however, required the appellant to produce Shri Piyush Jain to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Summons were issued to him u/s 131 and Mr. Piyush Jain failed to appear in reply to the summons. The AO asked the assessee in case Shri Piyush Jain was not produced to confirm the genuineness of the transaction, this amount of Rs. 25 lacs shall be treated as income of the appellant. The appellant, however, informed the AO vide letter dated 26-12-2008 that Shri Piyush Jain was abroad and could not be produced before him. Mr. Piyush Jainwas now abroad and his father was living at the same address. The appellant requested that present address of Mr. Piyush Jain be obtained from his father and enquiries be made at the cost of the appellant. A request was also made to summon the copy of bank account of the party for the relevant period from Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank which will also prove the financial status of the party and source of making the donation. Assessee stated that it was also making best efforts to ascertain the precise foreign address of the party but his father was not cooperating. The appellant made an offer to make an advance deposit for such estimated cost as may be named by AO for making the above enquiry. AO however, ignored this letter and the request and added the amount. It was submitted by the appellant that the donation was made by means of account payee cheuqe, the confirmation of the party and his bank account number have been furnished, the AO was unreasonable in not accepting the request of the appellant contained in its letter dated 26-12-2008 and not even making a mention thereof. The fact of existence of identity of the party and the source of payment by him by an account payee cheque was established, the AO could not treat this amount as unexplained deposit for addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act. Copy of account payee cheque issued by the party to the trust duly established source of payment from his bank account No. 33112934 with Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited, NRE, 10E, Connaught Place, New Delhi which cheque also contained his printed name duly establish the identity of the party and the source of funds of the party which is from the said bank account. If the learned AO had any doubt, he should have accepted the request of the appellant to summon the copy of the bank account of the party from the bank for the relevant period. The assessee therefore submitted that this addition was arbitrary and unjustified and could not be made u/s 68 of the Act.

68. 24.3. That leaves questions- whether it is a donation, if so voluntary and for corpus. If some parties resolve a dispute with a desire to donate the part of such amount for charity; in our view it is acceptable and natural; it cannot be viewed adversely. SJS first accepted having given the corpus donation, in some proceedings which he was not offered to be cross-examined to the subsequent , assessee any different version given by SJS will not bind the assessee. Besides assessee treated consequently it as corpus donation, used it accordingly on which no question has been raised. Even donors may develop some bad feelings about the trust they donated but it can not take away the original nature of corpus donation. In view thereof we are inclined to hold that this amount has been wrongly added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, the same is deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 24.4. Other amount added u/s 68 is corpus donation made by one Shri Piyush Jain. Copy of signed confirmation along with photo copy of a/c payee cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank was also filed by the appellant. Summons were issued and he did not appear, assessee informed the AO vide letter dated 26-12-2008 that Mr. Piyush Jain was now living abroad and his father was living at the same address. The present address may be obtained from his father and these enquiries may be made at the cost of the appellant. A request was also made to summon the copy of his bank account for the relevant period from Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank to prove his financial status and source of donation.