Tribunal allows appeals, directs verification of donation genuineness, provides opportunity for submission and verification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and directed the matters to be restored to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding the identity and genuineness of donations, following earlier directions. The AO was instructed to provide ample opportunity for the assessee to submit necessary details and produce donors for verification. The appeals were disposed of with these instructions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of corpus donations as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act.
2. Failure to provide necessary evidence for proving the identity of donors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Corpus Donations as Anonymous Donations under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act:

The assessee, a trust engaged in charitable activities in the field of education, filed appeals against the orders of CIT(A)-6, Mumbai, which upheld the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in treating corpus donations as anonymous donations taxable under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act. For A.Y. 2013-14, the AO observed that the assessee trust had shown an addition of Rs. 7,19,23,720 towards its corpus, including Rs. 3,40,48,002 received from "Yogeshwar Krishi." The AO held that the donations were anonymous as the assessee failed to provide the necessary evidence for proving the identity of the donors, including their names, addresses, and PAN details, as required under Section 115BBC(3). Consequently, the AO taxed the amount of Rs. 3,40,48,002 as anonymous donations under Section 115BBC and denied exclusion under Sections 11 and 11(1)(d).

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the donations. The CIT(A) also referred to the Tribunal's earlier decision for A.Y. 2010-11, which had set aside the issue for verification but did not conclusively establish the genuineness of the donations.

2. Failure to Provide Necessary Evidence for Proving the Identity of Donors:

The assessee argued that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's order in its own case for A.Y. 2010-11, where the matter was restored to the AO for verification. The Tribunal had observed that the assessee, being a non-religious trust, was required to maintain records of the identity of donors, including names and addresses, to comply with Section 115BBC. The Tribunal had directed the assessee to provide PAN, addresses, and other relevant details of the donors and produce a specified percentage of donors before the AO for verification.

For A.Y. 2014-15, the AO observed that the assessee trust claimed to have received voluntary contributions of Rs. 5,24,82,401 under "Yogeshwar Krishi" but failed to provide names, addresses, and PAN details of the donors. Consequently, the AO treated the contributions as anonymous donations and denied exclusion under Section 11.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the facts and issues for A.Y. 2014-15 were similar to those for A.Y. 2013-14 and restored the matter to the AO for verification, following the directions given in the earlier years.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the matters to the AO for necessary verifications regarding the identity and genuineness of the donations, following the directions given in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The AO was directed to provide proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant details and produce donors for verification. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2019.

---