TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. The assessee's former appeal ITA 1936/Ahd/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 raises the following substantive grounds:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,72,100/- under section 115BBC of Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the corpus fund received by the assessee Trust as anonymous donation, such addition is requested, to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition on account of one time admission fees of Rs. 67,80,650/-, such addition is requested to be deleted." 3. Latter appeal ITA 1937/Ahd/2015 relevant for assessment year 2011-12 is also found to be i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observing that the assessee had failed to furnish copies of donation receipt specifically towards corpus of the trust followed by their confirmations at the donors' end along with their names, addresses and PAN details. All this resulted in the impugned addition of Rs. 21,72,100/-. 5. The assesse preferred appeal. It further raised additional submissions therein. The CIT(A) sought a remand report. The assessee appears to have succeeded in filing confirmations of its donors in support of its impugned corpus donations. The Assessing Officer concurred with its stands in his remand report. The CIT(A) still rejects its corresponding grounds raised in the lower appellate order as under:- "2.2 I have carefully considered the submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the identifiable persons having sources of income. Some of them are parents, staff/well wisher. They have given donation with instructions to utilize the same for educational activities including investments in assets." They have also provided the confirmation letter on random basis along with relevant proof. 5. In view of the enquiry made from individuals as well as from the assessee on random basis, it is observed that various individuals have confirmed that they have made payments to Tripada Education Trust towards corpus for creation of asset." As mentioned in the assessment order, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has been given umpteen times to furnish copies of the receipts wherein donat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of assessment, the appellant is silent about this aspect. Hence, I am of the considered view that the remand report cannot be accepted now as additional evidence. Therefore, I am inclined with Id. Assessing Officer that the amount received as donation by the appellant as anonymous in nature. After going through the facts, I am not inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant and case law relied upon by it. The anonymous donations have been compulsorily taken from the students and that too in cash, who have opted to take admission in the educational institutions run by the appellant. This makes amply clear the trust is running the educational institution with profit motive. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with A.O. r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings. The impugned donations are no more anonymous in nature. We find force in assessee's first substantive ground that the authorities have erred in treating corpus donation as its income liable to assessed. This first substantive ground is decided in assessee's favour. 7. We come to the second issue of addition of admission fees of Rs. 67,80,850/-. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee for having collected the above stated admission fee as to why the same had been directly credited to balance sheet without first treating it as income in profit and loss account. The assessee explained the same to be a one time admission fee charged from its students in the nature of long term benefits to be provided to them. It claimed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in (2003) 260 ITR 366 (Guj) CIT vs. S.V. Vanik Jain Sangh is of the view that a voluntary contribution made with specific direction to form part of the corpus is not treated to be as income. This is followed by a co-ordinate bench of the tribunal in (2012) 136 ITD 111DIT vs. N.H Kapadia Education Trust reiterating the very view that contributions made in the nature of corpus funds are exempt u/s. 12. Same appears to be the ratio of hon'ble Delhi high court in (2012) 345 ITR 362 (Del) DIT vs. NASS COM holding that a one time admission fee paid by members to be spent only for acquiring capital asset is a corpus donation not taxable as income. The Revenue fails to points out any distinction on facts or law. We accept second substantive groun....