2024 (11) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,35,42,110/- made by the A.O. by treating the amount shown to be received as corpus donation as voluntary donation received during the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 without considering the facts of the case. II. Whether on facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in genuineness of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 without considering the facts of the case.? 2. Heard. 3. Apropos Ground No.1, during the year, the Assessee has shown addition or Rs. 335,42,110/- in Corpus Fund which was directly taken to the balance sheet The A.O., on sample basis, issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct. These facts are patent on record. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken note thereof. The Department has not been able to refute this position. 6. Further, as rightly observed by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry during the assessment or remand proceedings, except for sending notices u/s 133(6) to only 8 out of 285 donors. The plea that photocopies are not acceptable is unsustainable considering that the proceedings are conducted online. The ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed this contention of the Assessing Officer. 7. Then, it is also not the case of the A.O. that the documents furnished by the Assessee were not genuine. The fact that the documents filed during the appellate proceedings could have been filed during....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....O. It is not a case where the A.O. was in possession of some information or material to establish that the parties which donated the money or indulged in providing accommodation entries. In fact, no enquiry to that effect was ever done by the A.O., nor did he allege such practices by the donors. 9. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly relied on : i) 'DIT v. Ramakrishna Seva Ashram', [2012 / 205 Taxman 26 (Karnataka)]. ii) 'JCIT (Osd) (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. M/s Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra, Nawan Nagar, Circle-2, Chandigarh', ITA No. 899/Chd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15), 2020 (6) TMI 129 iii) 'CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd.', [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/159 ITR 8(SC); iv) 'CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors'. 361 ITR 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. Rs. 59,91,150/- (33% of Rs. 1,81,55,000/-) is added to taxable income of the assessee during the year under consideration." 12. Before the ld. CIT(A), the Assessee contended that: ". ...it is now being provided for all the other relevant documents possible in respect of the loans taken from NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and NDR Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The documents includes confirmed ledger accounts, ITR, Bank Statement, financials, PAN. The same is placed in Additional PB Pg54 onwards. The details in respect of all other parties which already have been provided for during the assessment proceedings is placed in PB Pg 37 onwards...." 13. The A.O. in his Remand Report observed that: "....Thus, the assessee had raised unsecured loan of Rs. 42,0....