TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. First, we will take up the Cross Objection No. 2/LKW/2022 by the assessee wherein the assessee has taken up following grounds of cross objection: - "1. BECAUSE Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter called CIT(A) was not correct in confirming disallowance to the extent of Rs. 510468.00. being of 3% @ of Donation received aggregating to Rs. 17051600.00 on adhoc basis to be treated as Anonymous Donation by treating as undisclosed income u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961, on the grounds of incomplete address of few Donors, furnished by trust to A.O. without specifically mentioning in the order the name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interest of the Revenue. In view of the submissions made by the assessee, we permit the assessee to withdraw the cross objection. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA. No.394/LKW/2020. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: - "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant had submitted the list of all the donors along with their address during the assessment proceedings as per the requirement of Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 however assessee merely provided a list of names with generalized addresses which could not be used to verify the alleged donors as the said addresses were in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary verifications in respect of the submitted donor and donation details. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that invoking of provisions of Section 115BBC of the Act is justified only in respect of 3% donors without appreciating the fact that the assessee merely Provided a list of names with generalized addresses which could not be used to verify the alleged donors as majority of the said addresses were incomplete and referred to a large locality rather than referring to the residence of a specific individual. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the balance income of Rs. 25,57,790/which is technically incorrect as the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order the total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion into the income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- disallowing the total fee receipts of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, he restricted the addition to the extent of 3% of Rs. 1,70,51,600/-. Aggrieved against this, both the Revenue and the Assessee have filed appeal and cross-objection respectively. 7. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the action of the Assessing Officer and contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He also contended that the assessee failed to provide relevant det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only requirement of the Act respect to the maintenance of record of identity is the name and the address of the contributor and nothing else has been prescribed till date. Anonymous donation has been defined in the new section to mean any voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24) (iia) of the Act, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed. To be excluded from the definition of anonymous donations the person receiving the donation is required to maintain the record of identity -indicating the name and address of contributor and such other "particulars as may be prescribe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the above ground of appeal. 7. Ground of AppealNo.9 is consequential in nature and is thus not adjudicated. 8. Ground of appeal no. 10 Through this ground of appeal the appellant has objected to the addition of Rs. 25,57,790/- made by the AO without any discussion in this regard. A perused of the assessment order shows that the return of income was filed at Nil income while the assessment has been made at total income of Rs 1,96,09,390. The AO has discussed, the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act for Rs. 1,70,51,600/-. However, no discussion pertaining to balance of Rs. 25,57,790/- is made in assessment order. No details have been provided regarding the re....