TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....March 2013, the appellant received on dt. 19.3.2013, one notice dt. 13. 3.2013 from the AO which indicated that CIT (A), Ghaziabad had passed appeal order on dt. 31.10.2012. 5. That the appellant moved an application dt. 25. 03.2013 before the C1T (Appeal), Ghaziabad for providing copy of the appeal order, however, the office of the CIT (A) verbally informed that one copy of the appeal order was issued to CA Pramod Goel on dt. 30.11.2012 when he came to office for some other work and advised to contact CA Pramod Goel. 6. That the appellant immediately contacted CA Pramod Goel to inquire about the copy of the appeal order who replied that as he is busy in time barring matters till 31.3.2013 and will be able to reply only after 31.3.2013. On 2.4.2013, the appellant again contacted CA Pramod Goel, who stated that on 30.11.2012, when he was in the income tax office for some office work, office of the CIT (A) gave them copy of the appeal order dated 31.10.2012 and as he was very busy during that time, he forgot to send copy of the same to appellant and gave the copy of the appeal order to appellant on dt. 2.4.2013. 7. That though the impugned order was passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h November, 2012 , I visited the CIT(A), Ghaziabad office for some work and on that day I was served with the copy of the appeal order dt. 31.10 .2012 in the income tax appeal of the appellant for AY 2007-08 . 4. That as I was very busy during that time, I forgot to convey message of receipt of appeal order to the appellant. 5. That in the last week of March, 2013, the appellant contacted me and enquired about the copy of the appeal order. As I was busy in time barring matters, I asked them to contact me in April 13. 6. That on 2.4. 2013, the appellant again contacted me and I gave them the copy of appeal order as served to me by the office of CIT(A), Ghaziabad on 30 .11.2012." Sd/- Deponent Verification I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents in para 1 to 6 above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed from. Verified at Ghaziabad on this 15th day of April 2013 . Sd/- Deponent 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to the mistake of the Counsel of the assessee wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... affidavit filed by the assessee was also rejected on the ground that it gained strength only from the affidavit filed by the firm of chartered accountants. It held that the assessee had failed to show the reasons for the entire period of delay, i.e., no reason was given for the delay that occurred between periods and therefore, the delay in filing the two appeals could not be condoned." It has further been held as under: "That none should be deprived of an adjudication on the merits unless the court or the Tribunal or appellate authority found that the litigant had deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he was careless, negligent and his conduct lacked bona fides. Those were the relevant factors. The Tribunal's orders did not meet the requirement set out in law. It had misdirected itself and had taken into account factors, tests and considerations which had no nexus to the issues at hand. The Tribunal, therefore, had erred in law and on the facts in refusing to condone the delay. The explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor could it have been concluded that the assessee was at fault, that he had intentionally and deliberately....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- and from M/s Navjyoti Vikas Sansthan, 66, New Mohanpuri Colony, Meerut amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-. The balance donation had been received from the different persons, below Rs. 20,000/- from each donor. The assessee although furnished the confirmation letters from the donors, however, the AO sought information u/s 133(6) of the Act vide letter dated 05.01.2009. The donor M/s VIC Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had given its confirmation vide letter dated 22.01.2009 along with the copies of its profit and loss account, balance sheet, copy of bank account & audit report etc. However, no confirmation was received from M/s Navjyoti Vikas Sansthan. Subsequently, a computerized confirmation was received. Thereafter, the AO traced bank account through the cheque drawn by the society, issued by M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan and called the information u/s 133(6) of the Act from Nainital Bank, Ghaziabad. On perusal of the bank account, the AO noticed that before issuance of cheque, funds were credited by transfer entry by M/s Navjyoti Vikas Sansthan vide cheques issued by Mahamedha Co- operative Bank. The AO also called information from Mahamedha Co-operative Bank with the name and complete ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has already been taken on 2.9.2009 by the undersigned. The Secretary Sh. Madan Giri, S/o Late Sh. Nanak Giri, has denied to give any donation to your society. Please show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- may not be added in your total income being anonymous donation as per provisions of Section 115BBC of the IT Act, 1961. 2. You are further required to show cause as to why the difference of cost of construction declared by you and the cost of construction estimated by the Valuation Officer amounting to Rs. 8,62,646/- may not be added in your total income as unexplained investment in construction of college building. 3. Please produce all books of accounts, bills & vouchers, bank pass book for the A.Y. 2007-08." 12. Since, there was no compliance to the aforesaid notice, the AO again issued a show-cause notice dated 27.11.2009 as under: "In this connection, Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and served. On the dates so fixed your authorised representative Shri Pramod Goel, FCA, attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished necessary details as called for which have been examined. 2. During the course of assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given to cross examine the secretary of the society Shri Madan Giri and to obtain/inspect all the affidavits given by the above persons/copies of statements/documents and copies of bank account relied upon by the Department on or before 8.12.2009. 5. The difference of cost of construction declared by you and the cost of construction estimated by the Valuation Officer amounting to Rs. 8,62,646/- may not be added in your total income as unexplained investment in construction of college building. 6. Please note that this is time barring case, in case of non compliance assessment proceeding will be finalized on the facts and circumstances of the case without providing you further opportunity and adding in your total income, the bogus donation of Rs. 15,00,000/- and difference in the investment in construction of building as shown by you and valued by DVO amounting to Rs. 8,62,646/-." 13. In response, the assessee submitted as under: "That at the outset we wish to submit that the donation of Rs. 15,00,000/- received from M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan is genuine and was received from them. The assessee maintained complete record of the identity indicating the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Sandeep Garg, who are Income Tax Advocates, for giving the entry of donation to desired societies through our bank account and in lieu of this act, they have promised to give 10% commission on this type of entries. d) Shri Madan Giri was residing at Meerut and the account of the society was opened at Ghaziabad whereas the head office of the society was also at Meerut. e) No return of income was filed by the society because as per statement of the secretary no activities were done by the society. f) As per bank account of the society M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan, having Account No. 1002078 at Nainital Bank Ltd., 35, Additional Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, which was opened on 21.2.2006 with the cash deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and upto 16.9.2006, the total transaction of Rs. 1,81,05,000/- was made and finally the balance amount of Rs. 3,593/- was withdrawn and no further transaction was made in this account till date. g) When the inquiry of clearing cheque was made, it has been found that most of the cheques are coming from the account of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta Prop. M/s Varun Trade Centre and M/s Sharma Associates who has his bank account at Mahamedha U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom M/s Varun Trade Centre and M/s Sharma Associates which are directly or indirectly related with Mr. Mahender Gupta. The search action took place at the premises of M/s D.N. Kansal Securities Pvt. Ltd., whose director is Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Prahlad Saran Gupta by Investigation Wing, Ghaziabad. Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, has accepted in his statement for providing bogus entries and he offered his commission income in lieu of entry charges. This fact also proves that all the above banking channels were used as tool for introducing black money by way of donation." 15. The AO held that there was neither genuine donation nor it was voluntary and made the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-, considering the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 115BBC/68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: CIT Vs P. Mohan Kala, 271 ITR & 278 of 2007 (SC) CIT, West Bengal-II Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) 16. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: II. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 on account of donation from Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan: "27. That during the year under consideration, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally false and we deny the same. Independent enquiries from Mr. Vinod Dixit and Mr. Sandip Garg were also made by your goodself in this regard. In reply, Mr. Vinod Dixit and Mr. Sandip Garg in their representation filed on 30.11.2009 before you has categorically denied allegations made by Mr. Madan Giri and Mr. Devendra Singh in their statements and affidavits filed before you, Thus, the allegations/denials made by Mr. Madan Giri and Mr. Devendra Singh are totally false and have been made with a prejudice mind. In these circumstances and in view of the documents filed before your goodself, records containing details of donation maintained by the assessee and filed before you., we submit that the donation received is genuine and was utilized for the charitable purposes. Thus, in view of these facts and submissions made earlier, it is prayed that the donation of Rs. 15,00,000/- should not be treated as anonymous and may be accepted as genuine." 29. That though it has been alleged by the AO that secretary of Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan denied having made any donation and also denied the signature on donation letter but in response to question put up to him during cross examinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 5.3 of the impugned order as under: The issue of unexplained, cash credit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in form of donation has been discussed in detail and lucidly by the AO on page 3 and pages 6 to 8 of the assessment order. For the sake of brevity, the entire reasoning is not being repeated here. Sufficient it is to conclude that donor has been examined by the AO wherein donor has not only refused to have given any genuine donation, but has also exposed the modus operandi followed by the assessee to misutilise the bank account and blank signed cheques, for the purpose of laundering as unaccounted money. The details of bank statement of donor (M/s Nav Jyoti Vikas Sansthan), if perused carefully, corroborate the view that donor's name and account has been misused for money laundering. The cash has been deposited in the account of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta and then transferred to the account of the donor which has issued cheques to the various persons including the appellant. The objections raised by the appellant's counsel during the appeal are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Society in ITA No. 2428/Del/2011 order dated 6.12.2013 DIT Vs Sri Belimatha Mahasamsthana Socio Cultural and Educational Trust 20 Taxmann.com 694 (Kar.) DIT Vs Hansraj Smarak Society in ITA No. 534/2012 order dated 18.09.2012 (Del.) ACIT Vs Shree Ganpati Ed. Society in ITA No. 2655/Del/2011 order dated 28.09.2012 Charanjiv Charitable Trust Vs DIT in ITA No. 3295/Del/2011 order dated 14.08.2015 19. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observation made by the AO at page no. 3 of the assessment order dated 21.12.2009. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT) CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del.) CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del) CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del.) CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 458 (Del.) CIT Vs N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 291 (Del.) CIT Vs Empire Builte....