TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee that it has introduced corpus donation to the extent of Rs. 13,53,600/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to substantiate the same with documentary evidences in the shape of copy of ledger account, copy of bills/receipts issued and copy of confirmation of the parties. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee simply filed copy of the ledger account maintained by the assessee. Since, according to him, the confirmations were not filed from any of the parties, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,53,600/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. Similarly, the Assessing Officer found from the balance sheet that the assessee has shown loans and advances to the extent of Rs. 60 lakhs, the bifurcation of which is as under:- S.No. Name Amount 1. Ashwani Shah 100000 2. Asha Gupta 100000 3. Asha Sharma 100000 4. Harinder kaur 100000 5. Pushpa Saini 100000 6. Reena Joon 100000 7. Urmila Gupta 100000 8. Lakhi Ram Shiv Narayan 2000000 9. Murli Enterprises 300000 10. Radhe Sham Ajay Kumar 1200000 11. Radhe Sham Ajay Kumar - Plot 800000 12. Rishi Praka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for which the advances were give. Even in the submissions made during the appellate proceedings, no details of why the amounts were advanced were given. 6.1.4 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Shree P. Subramoniam Religious Trust [(2009) 179 Taxman 144 (Kerala)], the Hon'ble Kerala High Court have, inter alia, held as under in Para 3 of the order: "3. ...There is nothing wrong in advancing funds for purchase of cement, if the cement is to be utilised for construction purpose for the trust. However, in this case except payment made to a trader, there is nothing to indicate as to the terms or the time for purchase of cement. The trader has no doubt confirmed receipt of advance for supply of cement. However there is nothing to indicate that any approval permission is granted or is expected within a reasonable time for construction to justify the advance made to the trader. We are of the view that this advance is only siphoning off funds of the trust and there is no immediate requirement of cement as no concrete proposal was there for construction of pilgrim centre. Even at the time of hearing appeals by the CIT (Appeals) which is af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l raising the following grounds:- "1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in:- a) Rejecting the additional evidences file during the course of proceedings. b) Rejecting application made by the assessee under rule 46A even without any opportunity and also without any reason. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) eared in holding that the amount of advances given of Rs. 53,00,000/- was investment or deposit even when the same has been received back as evidenced by the books of accounts. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the amount of Rs. 53,00,000/- was taxable since it was in-violation of section 13(l)(d) and also it was not one of the modes as specified u/s 11(5). 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in dismissing the ground of appeal relating to corpus donations of Rs. 13,53,600/- received during the relevant period. 5) On the facts and in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade addition of Rs. 53 lakhs being the loan given by the assessee to six persons on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the purpose of giving the loan to the extent of Rs. 53 lakhs to the above persons and the services being provided by the parties to whom loans and advances were given. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,53,600/- being the corpus donation received from 54 members on the ground that the assessee was unable to file any confirmation of any of the parties. We find the ld.CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences filed before him in shape of affidavits of all members giving corpus donation. He also rejected the submissions giving the nature and details of the advances and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons for which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the ld. counsel that the amount of Rs. 53 lakhs being given as advances to different parties for some construction purposes were returned back in the subsequent year and there is no misappropriation of funds since the exemption u/s 11 has not been denied and, therefore, the addition of the same is not correct. Similarly, ....