All India Digamber Jain Society, New Delhi v. Addl. DIT (E), New Delhi

ITA 876/DEL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 87620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAAA0304Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 876/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant All India Digamber Jain Society, New Delhi
Respondent Addl. DIT (E), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 04-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 04-08-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 14-02-2011
Judgment Text
ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 876/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ALL INDIA DIGAMBER JAIN SOCIETY 9906 AHATA THAKUR DAS SARAI ROHILA DELHI (PAN/GIR: AAAAA0304Q) VS. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-I NEW DELHI AND AND AND AND I.T.A. NO. 1485/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 DDIT(E) INV. CIRCLE-I ROOM NO. 311 AAYKAR BHAVAN LAXMI NAGAR DISTT. CENTRE DELHI 110 092 VS. ALL INDIA DIGAMBER JAIN SOCIETY 9906 AHATA THAKUR DAS SARAI ROHILA DELHI (PAN/GIR: AAAAA0304Q) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. HIREN MEHTA SH. SANJEEV KWATRA CA REVENUE BY : SH. H.L. DHIHANA C.I.T.(D.R.) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM YAHYA : AM YAHYA : AM YAHYA : AM THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE EMA NATE OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1485) REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1485) REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1485) REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1485) 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 2 99 80 000/- MADE ON ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 2 ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS/ SHOWN AS DONATIONS AS THE REAL SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSES SEE. 3. IN THIS CASE IT IS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED DONATION AGGREGATING TO ` 2 99 80 000/- FROM DIFFERENT CORPO RATE AND ENTITIES AS UNDER:- S.NO. NAME AND ADDRESS PAN AMOUNT (`) 1. DNIEPER LIMITED M-27 MANISH PLAZA 20 ANSARI ROAD DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI 110 002 AACCD2717L 30 00 000/- 2. BANKEY BIHARI CORPORATION LTD. 159-161 1 ST FLOOR KATRA BARYAN FATEHPURI DELHI 110006 AABCB8230D 45 00 000/- 3. SENILA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED AM-97 SALIMAR BAGH DELHI -88 AAJCS6772R 21 00 000/- 4. AROSON BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 11 NARINDER BHAVAN 448 RING ROAD AZADPUR DELHI 110 033 AAFCA5895L 76 00 000/- 5. NICE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 7 NARINDER BHAVAN 448 RING ROAD AZADPUR DELHI 110 033 AABCN5722A 15 00 000/- 6. MAKAMSHI ENTERPRISES LTD. 11/448 RING ROAD AZADPUR DELHI 110033 AADCM4055B 31 00 000/- 7. MAKAMASHI SALES PVT. LTD. 7 NARINDER BHAVAN 448 RING ROAD AZADPUR DELHI - 110033 AAECM 5331B 66 00 000/- 8. ELINA ELECROTECH PVT. LTD. 7 NARINDER BHAVAN 448 RING ROAD AZADPUR DELHI 110033 AABCE5631K 3 00 000/- 9. RSR NETWORKS PVT. LTD. AACCR2188R 12 80 000/- ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 3 LP-1A PITAMPURA DELHI 110034 TOTAL 2 99 80 000/- 3.1 ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED TWO INSPECTORS FOR V ERIFYING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. CONSIDERING THE ENQUIRY IN THIS REGA RD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS UNDER:- A) THE FIELD INQUIRES OF DIFFERENT INSPECTOR'S DEPUTE D SEPARATELY TO THE RESPECTIVE ADDRESS HAVE CLEARLY REVEALED THAT T HERE IS NO REAL-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE SO CALLED CORPOR ATE CONCERNS ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE ENQUIRIES CLEARLY REVEALED THAT NEITHER WAS ANY BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT SEEN TO BE RU NNING NOR ANY OFFICE SET UP FOUND TO BE OPERATE ON THE SAID PREMISES. INTERESTINGLY THIS WAS NOT SO IN ONE OR TWO BUT ALL THE CONCERNS UNDER THE SCANNER. EVEN A DISTINCT SIGNBOARD WAS NOT VI SIBLE ON ANY OF THE SAID LOCATIONS. RATHER SOME C.A'S OFFICES ARE REPORTED TO BE OPERATIONAL FROM A SINGLE SUCH PREMISE. THIS FACT IN ITSELF IS A CONCRETE AND SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL THE 9 CORPORATE ENTITIES PURPORTED TO HAVE GIVEN DONATION TO THE ASSESSEE ARE MERE PAPER ENTITIES CREATED TO ADVA NCE ENTRIES BY ISSUING CHEQUES IN LIEU OF CASH PAYMENTS AGAI NST A PRE-DETERMINED COMMISSION TO THE ENTRY OPERATORS. IT I S A NOW A WELL KNOWN FACT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH PAPER CONCERNS ALTHOUGH LEGALISTICALLY COMPLETE IN M AINTAINING OF THE I.T RECORDS/PAN PARTICULARS AND FINANCIAL STATE MENTS ARE IN EFFECT NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY BU T THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ENTRIES THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS O PERATED FOR THE PURPOSE. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY THE CASE WITH ALL THE 9 CONCERNS WHO ARE PURPORTED TO HAVE DONATED HUGE AMOUNTS RUNNI NG INTO ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 4 LACKS OF RUPEES TO AN UNCONNECTED/UNRELATED EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY FOR NO APPARENT BUSINESS OR PROFIT CONSIDERATION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TAKING DEFENCE BEHIND THE SO CALLED PAPER COMPLIANCE OF FURNISHING OF I.T PARTICU LARS/PAN CHEQUE DETAILS ETC CANNOT DEFY THE FINDING ON SPOT T HAT THERE IS NO REAL-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONCERNS ON THE GIVE N ADDRESS. B) IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN THE MEANWHILE (WHILE THE ISSUE OF DONATIONS UNDER QUESTION WERE BEING CONFRONTED) A BUNCH OF CONFIRMATORY LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED AT THE OFFICE D AK COUNTER BY AN UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF THE SAID DON OR COMPANIES ON 2/12/2009. THE ASSESSEE DURING HIS SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF CORPORATE DONATIONS HAS BEEN POINTING O UT IN ITS DEFENCE THE RECEIPT OF THESE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS AT THE DAK COUNTER ON 2-12-2009. IN RESPECT OF THE GENUINENESS OR THESE CONFIRMATORY LET TERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CORPORATE DONATIONS THE ASSESSEE'S RECOURSE TOWARDS THE AFORESAID CONFIRMATIONS AT THE DAK COUNTE R RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ITS ANSWERS. THE POINTS THAT RAISE SERI OUS DOUBTS IN THIS REGARD ARE WORTH CONSIDERING: I) WHY WERE THE VERIFICATORY NOTICES U/S-133(6) NOT RESPONDED TO ON TIME I.E 20/11/2009 EITHER THROUGH POST OR IN PER SON AS REQUESTED. II)WHY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AN INDIVIDUAL UN KNOWN PERSON MANAGED TO PROCURE CONFIRMATORY LETTER ON BEH ALF OF THE SUPPOSEDLY DISPARATE AND DIFFERENT CONCERN ON A SINGLE DATE FILING IT BY DAK ON A SINGLE DAY. ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 5 III)WHY WEREN'T THE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS PRESENTED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DIRECTLY AND IN PERSON AS REQUIRED IN THE NOTICE U/S-133(6). IV)WHY AND HOW WERE THE DIFFERENT LETTERS OF CONFIRM ATION HANDED OVER BY THESE CONCERNS TO ONE PERSON ON THE SAME DATE I.E 2/12/2009 ALTHOUGH THE LETTERS WERE TYPED ON THE DI FFERENT DATES. V)HOW DID THE ASSESSEE HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION T HAT CERTAIN CONFIRMATORY LETTERS WERE FILED AT THE DAK C OUNTER ON 2/12/2009 IF THE SAID CONFIRMATION WERE TO BE TREAT ED AS GENUINE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONS. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE DETAILED QUESTIONS IT IS CLEAR AND SAFE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE VERY ACT OF CAUSING THE FIL ING OF THE LETTERS AN ORCHESTORED EFFORT TO ON THE ONE HAND SHIFT THE PAPER ONUS TO THE DEPARTMENT AND ON THE OTHER TO AVOID FUR THER QUESTIONING WHICH COULD EXPOSE INFORMATION ON THE R EAL PLAYERS - DIRECTORS-CAS INVOLVED IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS ENTRY -OPERATION. NEEDLESS TO OVEREMPHASIZE THE PURPOSE IS ONLY TO ENTA NGLE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO UNFAVOURABLE LITIGATION. I T DOES NOT HOWEVER TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT WHICH REMAINS THAT NONE OF THE SAID DONOR CORPORATE CONCERNS ARE FOUND TO EXIST OR OP ERATE ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY ON GROUND. 1.5) THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF THESE CORPORATE DONATIO NS WAS PRESSED FURTHER. IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUED ARGUMENTS AD VANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO VEHEMENTLY INSISTED ON THE ADEQUACY OF ITS COMPLIANCE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO F URNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTI ONS: ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 6 * THE LATEST ADDRESSES AND CURRENT WHEREABOUTS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ALL THE DONORS CORPORATE CONCERN S. * THE NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND THE TELEPHONE NUM BER OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE CA'S WHO WERE CONTACTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GRANT OF DONATION. * WHO WAS THE PERSON (ALONG WITH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES) WHO WAS IN TOUCH WITH THE CONCERNED DONOR COMPANIES FOR PROCURING OF THE DONATIONS. IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THESE POINTED QUESTIONS REMAINED VAGUE. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT SHRI. VINOD JAIN THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE ENTITIES THROUGH HIS SOCIAL CIRCLE. NO SPECIFIC DETAILS AND PARTICULARS IN T HIS REGARD WERE HOWEVER SUBMITTED ON RECORD. 1.6 IN ORDER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CORPORATE DONATIONS INFORMATION WAS CALLED F ROM THE BANK BRANCHES FROM WHICH THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN RESPECT OF 6 SU CH CONCERNS THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE OPERATED FROM ONLY ON E BANK BRANCH NAMELY CENTURION BANK ASHOK VIHAR. PART INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SAID BANK SO FAR IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE U/S 133(6) REVEAL THAT THE DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGN ATORIES OF THESE ACCOUNTS ARE COMMON. THESE INCLUDE THE NAMES OF C ERTAIN PERSONS WHO ARE BEING EXAMINED IN THE DUE COURSE OF T HE INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS. THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS ON REC ORD STRONGLY CORROBORATES THE CASE FOR HOLDING THAT THE CORPORATE ENTITIES PROVIDING THE SO CALLED DONATIONS ARE NOT DIFFERENT/I DENTIFIABLE BUSINESS ENTITIES WHOSE DONATIONS TO THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 7 NORMAL COURSE. THESE PAYMENTS HAVE SIMPLY BEEN MADE IN LIEU OF CASH PAYMENT AGAINST ISSUE OF CHEQUES THROUGH WHICH T HE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED UNDISCLOSED FUND INTO ITS ACCOUNTS. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED ABOVE AND EVIDENCES GATHERED THROUGH FIELD/BANK ENQUIRIES A ND FACTS REVEALED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS ON RECORD IT IS A SAFE CONCLUSION THAT THE RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO ` 2 99 80 0 00/- ARE NOT GENUINE DONATIONS BUT MERE ENTRIES TAKEN FROM THE SAID CONCERNS BY OBTAINING CHEQUES AGAINST CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSEE FROM ITS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. AS THE REAL SOURCE OF THE SE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE THESE RECEIPTS ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 18. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT CONTENTS OF T HE REMAND REPORT DATED 6.9.2010 AND THE COUNTER OF THE APPELLANT DATED 12.11.2010 ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS FIRST OF ALL SEEN T HAT ON ONE HAND THERE IS DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRM ATION COVERING LETTER COPY OF PAN CARD COPY OF BANK STA TEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF ALL THE CORPORATE DO NORS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF DONORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE DONATIONS WHICH WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOREOVER THERE IS EVIDENCE REGARDING NOTICES ISSUED U/ S 133(6) BEING SERVED UPON THESE DONORS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIE S. FINALLY THERE ARE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS REITERATING THE CORPO RATE DONATIONS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 2.12.20 09. ON THE OTHER HAND THE SOLITARY PIECE OF DOCUMENT BEING REL IED UPON BY ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HOLDING THAT THE CORPORATE DO NATIONS ARE BOGUS IS THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT DATED 25.11.2009 AND 27.11.2009. IN FACT THE SERVING OF 13 3( 6) NOTICE S BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS ITSELF NULLIFIES THE VE RACITY OF THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT AND THE SAME THEREFORE HAS TO BE D ISCOUNTED AS UNSUBSTANTIATED. 19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ATTEMPTED TO SUMMON THE VARIOUS CORPORATE DONORS UNDER SECTION 131 WHICH COULD HAVE REVEALED THEIR IDENTITY TO HIS SATISFACTION. NO ATTEMP T WAS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE AUTH ENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PAN NO. CO PY OF BANK STATEMENT COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED IN SUPPO RT OF ITS CONTENTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE UNCONTROVERTED POSI TION REMAINS THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPRO VED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN IF THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT EVIDENCES AVAILABLE I.E. ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE INSPECTOR DOCUMENTED IN HIS REPORT A ND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THUS WHEN TWO FORMS OF EVIDENCE ARE AVAILABLE THE SA ME HAVE TO BE WEIGHED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ONE CANNOT BE TAKEN IN ISOLATION DISREGARDING THE OTHER. IT IS A SETTLED POSIT ION OF LAW THAT A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL ALWAYS CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN AN ORAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ATTEMPTED TO DISPROVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE INSPECTORS' REPORTS LOOSE THEIR EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 9 20. THERE IS ALSO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT THAT EVEN IF THE CORPORATE DONATIONS ARE TREATED AS BOGUS I T WOULD NOT ALTER THE POSITION REGARDING COMPUTATION OF THE TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT AND IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AS GRANTED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE EVEN IF AGGRE GATE AMOUNT OF DONATION IS REDUCED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARE D BY THE SOCIETY AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT IT WILL NOT ALTER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS THE ENTI RE' AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH AR E CHARITABLE IN NATURE. SINCE THE DONATIONS ARE DULY R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS BEEN APPLI ED TO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY THERE CANNOT B E ANY GRIEVANCE TO THE REVENUE. ADDITION U/S 68 CAN ONLY B E MADE WHEN ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND IS NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME. ONCE THE AMOUNT EVEN IF IT IS UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT IN THE FORM OF ALLEGED UNSUBST ANTIATED CORPORATE DONATION IS FORMING PART OF INCOME THE SAM E CANNOT BE ADDED ONCE AGAIN AS IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDI TION. THE ABOVE PROPOSITION IS BACKED BY THE DECISION OF DELHI H IGH COURT IN KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARITABLE FOUNDATION 278 ITR 152 . 21. IN KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER :- 'THAT TO OBTAIN BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 11 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATION WAS VOLUNTARY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY DISCLOSED ITS DONATIONS BUT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF DONORS. THE FACT THAT THE COMPLETE LIST OF ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 10 DONORS HAD NOT BEEN FILED OR' THAT THE DONORS HAD NO T BEEN PRODUCED DID NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS. THIS WAS SHOWN IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE ADMITTEDLY 75% OF THE DONATIONS WERE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. SECTION 68 OF THE AC T HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS OF RS.18 24 200 AS ITS INCOME AND IT COULD NOT BE DISPUTED THAT ALL RECEIPTS OTHER THAN CORPUS DONATIONS WOULD BE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS THUS FULL DISCLOSURE O F INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO APPLICATION OF THE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE . THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE SINCE IT WAS DULY REGISTERED UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A.' 22. IN DIT(E) VS. MOTIBAGH MUTUAL AND EDUCATION 298 ITR 190 (DEL) THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND WA S GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN DONATIONS BUT THE DONOR S COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY WAY OF DONA TIONS WAS UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL BUILDING. ON T HESE FACTS THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WAS UPHELD BY THE HIGH CO URT BY OBSERVING THAT EVEN IF THERE WERE MINOR CONTRADICTIO NS OR DEVIATIONS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BY ITSE LF DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATION THAT ASSESSEE DID N OT EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OR THAT IT EXISTED PARTLY FOR A PROFIT MOTIVE. ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 11 23. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATIO N FROM THE CORPORATE DONORS FURNISHED THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) AS WELL AS THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THESE DONATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ANONYMOUS. 24. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CORPORATE DONORS. IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSI ON MADE IN PRECEDING PARAS THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF RS' 2 99 80 000/- IS DE LETED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONORS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE COPY OF PAN CARD COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE REL EVANT PERIOD COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COPY OF ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF ALL THE DONORS IN SUPPORT OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED TO SUMMON THE VARIOUS CORPORATE DONORS U/S.131 WHICH COULD HAVE R EVEALED THEIR IDENTITY TO HIS SATISFACTION. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PAN COPY OF BANK STATEMENT COPY OF INCO ME TAX RETURN FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION BY THE ASSESSEE . 7. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT T HERE IS ALSO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT EVEN IF THE CORPORATE DONATIO NS ARE TREATED AS ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 12 BOGUS IT WOULD NOT ALTER THE POSITION REGARDING COMP UTATION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THERE IS NO DE NIAL OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AS GRANTE D UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE EVEN IF AGGREGATE AMOUN T OF DONATION IS REDUCED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE SOCI ETY AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IT WILL NOT ALTER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS THE ENTIRE' AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT ON TH E OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. SINCE THE DONATIONS ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTIRE AMO UNT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY TH ERE CANNOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE TO THE REVENUE. 7.1 THUS WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY N AME AND ADDRESS OF THE CORPORATE DONORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF DONATIONS G IVEN BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 1 11 02 473/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS U/S. 13(7) READ WITH SECTION 115BBC AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED CONVINCING PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTITY SOURCE OR ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE SAME. 9. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS SESSEE HAS RAISED DONATION AMOUNTING TO ` 1 11 02 473/- FROM VARIOUS IN DIVIDUALS OR SMALL DONORS. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT HUN DREDS OF INDIVIDUALS ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 13 ARE PURPOSED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED SMALL AMOUNTS AS DON ATIONS WHICH ARE RANGING FROM ` 3000 TO ` 6000. ASSESSING OFFICE R CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES IN 15 CASES. THE ENQUIRY REVEALED THAT IN 7 CASES THE INDIVIDUALS WERE NOT FOUND TO RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS ES GIVEN. ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THIS REGA RD HOLDING AS UNDER:- A) THE RANDOM CHECK CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTORS IN 15 CASES REVEALED THAT AT LEAST IN 7 CASES THE PERSONS WERE REPLI ED TO NOT RESIDING OR NOT HAVING RESIDED ON THE SAID PREMISES. THI S IN ITSELF IS A STRONG EVIDENCE TO RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS OVER THE VE RACITY OF THE DONORS. B)IT IS SEEN FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE DONORS LISTS THAT THEY BELONG TO THE NOOK AND. CORNERS OF DE LHI. ON THE OTHER HAND THE SCHOOLS RUN BY THE SOCIETY ARE LOCATED AT VASUNDHARA; GHAZIABAD AND OTHER PLACES AROUND EAST DE LHI. IT IS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE INDIVIDUALS WOULD COME ALL THE WAY TO DONATE TO THIS SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR. I C)IT IS NOT COMPREHENSIBLE AS TO WHY THE INDIVIDUALS FR OM ALL OVER DELHI. INTENDING TO DO CHARITY WOULD DONATE AMOUNT TO A SCHOOL RUNNING ON COMMERCIAL LINES THAN TO ANY OTHER PHILAN THROPIC ORGANIZATION TEMPLE OR RELIEF ORGANIZATION. D) PREPONDERANT MAJORITY OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS DONAT ION RECEIPTS ARE IN CASH OUT OF THE TOTAL LISTS OF INDIVIDU AL DONORS ONLY FEW ARE BY WAY OF THE CHEQUE. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THA T INDIVIDUALS FROM MIDDLE CLASS EDUCATED FAMILIES WHO NORMALLY DONAT E TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WOULD INSIST ON CHEQUE PAYMENT S FOR ENSURING TRANSPARENT USER BY ANY CHARITABLE SOCIETY. ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 14 E)THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DETAIL S AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ESTABLISHING THE. IDENTITY OF T HE DONORS APPEARING IN THE LIST. IT WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT COPI ES OF I- CARD/RATION CARDS OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENT SO A S TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DONORS UNDER QUEST ION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. F) THE ASSESSEE'S COMPARATIVE ACCOUNTS OVER THE PERIOD RE VEAL THAT THE FIGURE OF INDIVIDUAL DONORS RECEIPTS AT RS. 1 16 02 473/- DURING THIS YEAR IS EXORBITANTLY HIGH. THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THIS SPURT IN ITS RECEIPTS. THERE IS NO UNUSUAL CHARITABLE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE SCHOO L SOCIETY DURING THE YEAR TO SUDDENLY ATTRACT SUCH LARGE SUMS FR OM INDIVIDUALS EXCEPT THE INVESTMENTS REQUIRED FOR PURC HASE OF NEW LAND AT VASUNDHARA GHAZIABAD ? G) THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WEATHER THE INDI VIDUALS APPEARING IN THE LIST HAD. ANY SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP W ITH THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION OR THE WARD FOR WHICH REA SON THE DONATION WERE MADE TO THE SOCIETY. NO RESPONSE ON THE SOCIETY WAS RECEIVED NOR WAS THE INFORMATION ASCERTAINABLE FR OM DETAIL ON RECORD. H) DURING THE EXAMINATION OF RECORDS AND DETAILS IN T HE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS CAME TO NOTICE THAT MA JORITY OF THE DONATION AMOUNTS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL DONOR ARE ACTUALLY REFLECTED AS CASH DEPOSI TS IN THE ACCOUNT NO. 81 OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK PATPARGANJ. S CRUTINY OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT. REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPENDED HUG E CASH PAYMENTS FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES ESPECIALLY AN AMOUN T OF RS. 1 15 58 100/- FOR PURCHASE OF REGISTRATION STAMP A T THE END OF MARCH 2007. A DEEPER SCRUTINY OF THIS ACCOUNT NO 81 REVEALS THAT ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 15 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT BY CASH ON SPECIFI C DATE/DATES AT THE END OF MARCH 2007 FOR PURCHASE OF STAMP DUTY PAPERS FOR REGISTRATION OF LAND TRANSFER AT VASUNDHARA GHAZIABAD. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH PAID FOR PURCHASE OF STAMPS WAS RS. 1 15 58 100/- WHICH IS A LMOST EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL CASH DONATION RECEIPTS SHOWN. IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED CASH INTO THE ACCOUNT NO.8L IN THE GARB OF INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 24TH DECEMBER 200 9/FILED ON 30TH DECEMBER 2009 HAS FURNISHED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CLUDING FEW INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND SOME COPIES OF ELECTION C ARDS ETC IN 2 TO 3 CASES IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. IT MAY B E STRESSED IN THIS REGARD THAT THE DELAYED COMPLIANCE COULD HAV E BEEN ONLY TO AVOID : FURTHER CROSS VERIFICATION AT OUR END IN R ESPECT OF THESE CASES. EVEN IF THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON RECORD NO CREDENCE OF THE SAME CAN THEREFORE BE GIVEN. HAD THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE BEEN SAME IN RESPECT OF THE HUNDREDS OF INDIV IDUAL DONORS AND HAD THE EVIDENCES BEEN PROVIDED TIMELY AN D IN ANY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER A CONTRARY VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AFTER NECESSARY FIELD ENQUIRIES. AS THE COMPLIANCE IS ONLY OF A TOKEN NATURE SIMPLY TO SHIFT THE ONUS TO THE DEPARTMENT AT THE LAST MOMENT CREDIBILITY OF THE SAME IS DISPUTABLE. IN LIGHT OF PRECEDING DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RECEIPT OF PREDOMINANTLY CASH DONATIONS FROM THE LARGE NUMBE R OF INDIVIDUALS AMOUNTING TO RS.1 16 02 473/ARE NOT GENU INE DONATIONS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS ACTIVITY. THESE REPRESENT FUNDS INTRODUCED INTO ITS ACCOUNT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. BESIDES ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 16 THE RECEIPTS BEING FROM THE SOURCES OF UNIDENTIFIABLE /UNVERIFIABLE NATURE ALSO ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF DONATION RECEIPT OF AN ANONYMOUS NATURE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 13(7) OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 34. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. I AGREE. WITH THE CONT ENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(7) CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THOUGH INDIVIDUAL DONORS LIST IS AVAILABLE VIZ. NAME AND ADDRESS YET SOME WERE NOT TRA CEABLE. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN SECTION 13(7) AND SECTION 68. IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTE D TO COVER SITUATION WHERE APART FROM ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF INDIVIDUAL DONORS H AVE ALSO TO BE ESTABLISHED IT COULD HAVE EMPLOYED SIMILAR LANGU AGE IN SECTION 13(7) AS THE ONE WHICH IS USED IN SECTION 68. SI NCE THE WORDS USED ARE DIFFERENT IN SECTION 13(7) ONLY UNIDEN TIFIED DONATIONS FOR WHICH NO DONEE COMES FORWARD TO CLAIM C AN BE COVERED UNDER THE SAID SECTION. 35. MOREOVER IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FAILED TO INITIATE ANY ACTION TO DISPROVE THE DETAILS OF INDIVI DUAL DONORS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT F OR VERIFICATION EXERCISE BY THE INSPECTOR IN RESPECT OF 1 5 DONORS. THE REPORTS OF THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES REGA RDING IDENTITY OF INDIVIDUAL DONORS WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE INSPECTOR'S REPORTS IN T HIS REGARD ARE ALSO NOT ANNEXED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHE REAS IN THE CASE OF CORPORATE DONATIONS THESE REPORTS HAVE BE EN DULY MADE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER SETTLED POSITIO N OF LAW ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 17 THE CONTENTS OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT IN THE CASE OF T HE INDIVIDUAL DONORS CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER NO WHERE RECORDS THE FACT WHETHER THE REPORT O F THE INSPECTOR WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR NOT. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT SOME ENQU IRIES WERE DULY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTORS THEN AS ADMITT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF ONLY 15 DO NORS WAS CONDUCTED OUT OF WHICH NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND WITH RESPECT OF 8 DONORS. FURTHER UPON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS EN CLOSED TO THE LETTER DATED 24.12 09 IT IS SEEN THAT ADDRESS PROOF OF INDIVIDUAL DONOR IN THE FORM OF COPY OF TELEPHONE B ILL ELECTION CARD DRIVING LICENSE ETC HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SOME C ASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT FIND ANY DEFECTS REGARDING T HESE DOCUMENTS SUBSTANTIATING THE ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUAL DON ORS ON A SAMPLE BASIS 36. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED TH E FACT THAT THERE ARE MANY GENUINE PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE DO NATIONS TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. SINCE MAJORITY OF THE PERSON WHO WERE TAKEN ON SAMPLE BASIS WERE INDENTIFIED AND HAVE ACCEPT ED THAT THEY HAVE MADE DONATION TO THE APPELLANT TRUST THUS IT WAS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS DONATION FROM INDIVIDUAL . HOWEVER IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL WE RE NOT FOUND. THUS THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME ANONYMOUS DONATION CREEPING INTO THE TOTAL DONATION MADE BY THE INDIV IDUAL CANNOT BE RULED OUT. BUT AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALL THE 1850 INDIVIDUAL CANNOT BE MADE JUST BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT TRACE 7 INDIVIDUAL AND THAT TO WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE INSPECTOR REPORTS. AS SUCH A DISALLO WANCE OF ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 18 RS 5 LACS AS ANONYMOUS DONATION SHALL MEET THE ENDS OF J USTICE. THUS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 LA CS IS SUSTAINED. 11. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE AND ASSESSE E ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT INDIVIDUAL DONORS LIST WAS SUBMITTED WITH NAME ADDRESSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT AS AGAIN ST THE 1850 INDIVIDUALS ENQUIRY WAS MADE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO 1 5. SEVEN OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE TRACED BY THE INSPECTOR. THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES REGARDING IDENTITY O F THE INDIVIDUAL DONORS WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THE CONTE NTS OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT IN CASE OF INDIVIDUAL DONORS CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL HAS BEEN PROVIDE D. FURTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED ANY DEFECT IN TH E ADDRESS PROOF OF INDIVIDUAL DONORS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY B ECAUSE THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT TRACE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS THE DO NATION OF ENTIRE 1850 INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 19 ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO. 876) 14. THE GROUND RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITIO N OF ` 5 LACS AS ALLEGED ANONYMOUS DONATION OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 1 16 02 473/- PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. LD. COUNSEL REFE RRED TO PARA 36 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER AND CONTENDS THAT NEITHER THE NAMES NOR SPECIFIC DONATIONS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ANONYMOUS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ONLY ON A POSSIBILITY ADHOC AMOUNT OF ` 5 LACS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ANONYMOUS DONATION. IT IS PLEADED THAT T HE OBSERVATION IS PURELY BASED ON SURMISE AND ADHOC IN NATURE THE SAM E CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION. IN A BIG TRUST LIKE ASSESSEE WITH 1850 DONORS IT IS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE ALL THE 1850 DONORS. NON PRODUCTION OF 7 DONORS IS MINISCULE WHICH CANNO T BE ADDED ON SUSPICION WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE ANONYMOUS NAME. 15. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS HEARD. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE THE ADDITION RETAINED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS PURELY ADHOC IN NATURE THE BASIS THEREOF IS ONLY A POSSIBILITY WITHOUT ITA NOS. 876 & 1485/DEL/2011 20 SPECIFYING THE ALLEGED ANONYMOUS DONORS WHICH IS UNJU STIFIED. THIS AMOUNT OF ` 5 LACS CANNOT BE ADDED THE SAME IS DELET ED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/9/2011. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 09/9/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1.APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR I TAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES