AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld. C.l.T (Exemption) erred in relying on the statement of Sri Anand Agarwal ,Trustee, of M/s Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust when such statement itself was not admissible as evidence and further the said Sri Anand Agarwal and other alleged intermediaries were not produced for cross examination inspite of specific request, by relying on the judgements which in fact supported that on the facts and circumstances of the case, cross examination was to be allowed and by denying the same the order has become bad in law. 3. For that the Ld. C.l.T(Exemption)erred in cancelling the Registration of the Trust U/s.12AA(3) of the I.T. Act, I961 holding that the activities of the assessee were not ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1(1), Kolkata on 11.09.2015. During the course of Survey operation it transpired that M/s. Govind Ram Goel Charitable Trust was in the business of money laundering and providing accommodation entry to different individuals and organizations. The entry was provided by way of accepting donations and returning the same to the donors through web of financial transactions after retaining the commission; and accepting money by cash or through a web of financial transactions and giving donations after retaining the commission. It was noted by CIT ( Exemptions) that M/s. BimladeviDharamprakash JanKalyan Nidhi, in the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 to the relevant assessment years, 2013-14, 2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in the field of providing health care services. Furthermore the donations have been paid by us as per objects of our trust. Assessee also stated that allegation of "giving bogus donation and accepting the money in cash" is baseless & arbitrary and we deny such allegations. The assessee explained that their trust had never indulged in such activities. The assessee requested the CIT(E), to call Sri Anand Agarwal for our cross examination. It may be stated here that the Hon'ble Madras high Court in the case of S Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR page 157 that the deposition recorded in the course of Survey is not binding. After going through the submission of the assessee, as stated above, the CIT(E) held that assessee`s sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments/decisions lead to one conclusion that right to cross-examine the witness, who made adverse reports, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partem'. The CIT(E) pointed out that the Case Law mentioned by the assessee Trust in the case of S Khader Khan & Sons is not applicable in this case. Therefore, CIT(E) held that indulging in ingenuine activities which is not at par with the trust deed leads to the ultimate conclusion that the trust is in the act of money laundering which is illegal, not genuine and not at par with the objectives of the trust. The ld CIT(E) also referred the provisions of section 12AA (3) of the I.T. Act, which reads as under: "Where a trust or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st. Moreover, the assessee trust is not part of the group of M/s Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust. The activities of the trust are being, carried on in accordance with the objects and there was no such finding except that the assessee paid the alleged bogus donations. The Ld. C.l.T(Exemption) erred in cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) only on the ground that the assessee received cash in exchange of donation without any evidence that the assessee had received cash for payment of donation. The Counsel submitted that the objects for which this Trust was created, are to establish, support, maintain and grant aid to Schools, Colleges, Libraries, Reading rooms, Community halls, Prayer halls, Philosophical discourages c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment of Hon`ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. KHADER KHAN SON (2008) 300 ITR 0157 wherein it was held the Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the CIT(E), which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we are of the view that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, ....