Tribunal Upholds CIT (A) Decision on Section 68 Addition

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 68 and confirming that the donations were not anonymous under section 115BBC. The Tribunal distinguished between normal and corpus donations, emphasizing the adequacy of donor information provided by the assessee. The AO's argument that the donations were bogus and anonymous was rejected, with the Tribunal citing a Delhi High Court case to support its decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition made by AO under section 68 read with Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act is deleted by CIT (A).
2. Applicability of section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act to the case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made by the AO under section 68 read with Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act. The AO contended that the signatures on confirmations and affidavits of donors were forged, and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of donors. However, the CIT (A) found that the donations were normal donations duly recorded by the assessee and shown as income, not corpus donations. The CIT (A) held that provisions of section 68 were incorrectly invoked and that section 115BBC was not applicable as the donations were not anonymous. The CIT (A) relied on case laws and directed the AO to allow exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The AO argued that all donations were bogus and should be treated as anonymous donations under section 115BBC. However, the CIT (A) found that the donations were not anonymous as the assessee maintained records of donors' details. The AO's contention that the donations were corpus donations was refuted by the CIT (A), who held that the donations were normal income offered by the trust. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, citing a Delhi High Court case that when income is credited to the trust's account, section 68 does not apply. The Tribunal also found that the donations did not fall under the definition of anonymous donations as per section 115BBC, as the assessee had provided detailed donor information.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the AO, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition made under section 68 and confirming that the donations were not anonymous under section 115BBC. The Tribunal's decision was based on the distinction between normal and corpus donations, as well as the adequacy of donor information provided by the assessee.

---