2016 (9) TMI 1668 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Court Upholds Deletion of Unexplained Donations, Investments, and Fees Due to Lack of Evidence.

 Commissioner Of Income Tax­I, Kanpur Versus M/s Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decisions. It confirmed the deletion of unexplained corpus donations, investments, and capitation ... Addition u/s 115(BBC) r/w Section 68 - anonymous donation - HELD THAT:- Questions No. 1 and 2 does not arise since Section 115 (BBC) itself was inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and assessment year in question is 2005­-06. Addition U/s. 69 on account of unexplained investment in property - addition was made on the basis of cogent documentary evidences found during the course of survey proceedings - ITAT deleted addition - As could not be disputed that same are covered by Supreme Court's judgment in Sargam Cinema[2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER] wherein similar question has been answered in favour of Assessee. Hence, Questions also answered against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of anonymous donation under Section 115(BBC) r/w Section 682. Definition of corpus donation under Section 11-1D3. Applicability of res judicata in tax proceedings4. Deletion of unexplained corpus donation by the Assessing Officer5. Deletion of unexplained investment in property by the Assessing Officer6. Deletion of unexplained capitation fee by the Assessing OfficerInterpretation of Anonymous Donation:The appeal raised questions regarding the interpretation of anonymous donation under Section 115(BBC) r/w Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in interpreting the definition of anonymous donation without proper substantiation. However, the counsel for both parties acknowledged that the questions related to this issue did not arise due to the insertion of Section 115(BBC) post the assessment year in question.Definition of Corpus Donation:The issue of corpus donation under Section 11-1D was also raised in the appeal. The appellant contended that the ITAT ignored the definition of corpus donation and failed to consider the twin conditions of voluntary contribution and specific direction. However, it was noted that a previous judgment between the same parties had already resolved similar questions in favor of the assessee, rendering this issue settled in favor of the assessee.Applicability of Res Judicata:The question of whether res judicata applies in tax proceedings was also raised. The court referred to a previous judgment between the parties where similar questions had been answered in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the court held that res judicata does not apply in the present case, aligning with the previous decision.Deletion of Unexplained Corpus Donation:The ITAT had deleted the corpus donation made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds of unexplained corpus donation. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide written or oral confirmation of the alleged donors, leading to the deletion of the corpus donation amount.Deletion of Unexplained Investment and Capitation Fee:The ITAT also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in property and capitation fee. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, where similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the additions, as the facts in the present case did not warrant such additions.In conclusion, the court found the appeal lacking merit and dismissed it based on the aforementioned analysis and resolutions of the issues raised.