AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Road, Hisar Haryana. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). The assessee revised its return of income on 23.09.2018 and the same was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) along with the detailed questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed relevant information as called for. On perusal of the information submitted by the assessee, it is observed that assessee is a registered society u/s 12AA of the Act dated 26.11.2008 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar and granted exemption u/s 80G of the Act. Further approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was also granted to the assessee by the CCIT, Haryana. 5. Assessee is imparting education and running a Technical and Management College and also a Senior Secondary School at Barwala Road, Hisar. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has declared gross receipts of Rs. 19.88 crores and claimed expenditure of Rs. 16.49 crores and declared surplus Rs. 3.40 crores. 6. He observed that the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason that assessee has deposited huge cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....month of November 2016 which is according to him is unbelievable and unjustified. He further observed that it is highly unbelievable that the students who used to pay fees in the month of January, February and March in the succeeding year, have paid their fees in the November itself. He further observed that assessee has accumulated the cash in hand after 05.11.2016 and not deposited the same in there bank account and surprisingly deposited the same during demonetization period. 9. After considering the explanations offered by the assessee, he observed that assessee has deposited cash from 10.11.2016 to 16.11.2016 to the extent of Rs. 4,22,84,000/- the source declared was from cash in hand. Accordingly, by relying on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act to the extent of Rs. 4,22,84,000/- after giving credit to the cash in hand of Rs. 2,27,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which includes details of fees collection during 2013-14 to 2017-18 in cash and other than the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Del- Trib.) b) Fateh Chand Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (Exemptions) in 49 ITR (Trib) 276 (Lucknow) c) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT d) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. e) ITΑ Νο. 995/Ahd/2014 dated 6.1.2020 Shree Sanad Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, f) ΙΤΑ 2614 Kol 2019 dated 29.5.2020 Bhagwant Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO g) ITA No. 1019/Hyd/2017 dated 18.5.2018 ITO vs. Shaik Zameer h) ITA No. 48/bang/ 2019 dated 27.2.2019 Shri Ashok Desing naik vs. ITO i) ITA No.1652/Ahd/2011 Shri Pavan Kumar Bhagatram j) ITA No.264/Hyd/2011 S.B. Steel Industries k) J.M. Wire Inds Vs. CIT in ITA 96 of 1989 dated 15.07.2010 l) ITA No.215/LKW/2016 dated 30.11.2018 DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi m) ITA No.524/D/2017 dated 25.11.2019 Neeta Breja 14. Further, it was submitted that the assessee has deposited fees during the assessment year 2016-17 to the extent of Rs. 13,33,45,600/- and in the assessment year 2017-18 assessee has deposited Rs. 11,58,28,800/-, during the year under consideration. There is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant society. 2.4 That adverse findings recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not based on correct appreciation of facts of the appellant society and statutory provisions of law and therefore, untenable. 3 That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section 68 of the Act and thereafter computed the demand in accordance with the rates specified in section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 was w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and thus applicable from financial year 2017-18 onwards and not from the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 and therefore, demand computed was not only arbitrary but highly excessive. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tax ought to have therefore applied the income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the findings of the lower authorities. 19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 4,22,84,000/- during demonetization period particularly during 10th November to 16th November 2016. We observed that assessee is a registered society u/s 12AA and continued to get the exemption over the years. Further, we observed that assessee has already disclosed gross receipts in the current assessment year of Rs. 19,09,69,323/-. We observed that assessee has disclosed gross receipts in the preceding assessment years as under:- Sr. No Assessment Year Fees (Rs.) Assessment u/s Cash Other than cash Total i) 2013-14 11,44,39,669 1,59,06,931 13,03,46,600 143(3) ii) 2014-15 6,13,63,845 8,81,67,430 14,95,31,275 143(1) iii) 2015-16 7,55,38,712 8,03,30,515 15,88,69,224 143(1) iv) 2016-17 10,95,86,137 7,67,89,500 18,63,75,637 143(1) v) 2017-18 12,00,43,580 7,09,25,743 19,09,69,323 143(3) 20. From the above chart, we observed that assessee has source of cash as well as fees collected other than cash. Assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with respect to the various donors which establish the identity of those donors. The learned assessing officer on amination of the various details with respect to these donors and stated that there are several infirmities in the details furnished by the assessee, he made an addition of the about some u/s 68 of the income tax act and also applying the provisions of section 115BBC of the act. The learned CITA has categorically recorded a finding that above donation is normal donation which has been offered by the assessee as income. The claim of the AO is that same is a corpus donation. Corpus donation is never credited to the income and expenditure account of the trust whereas the normal donation is credited to the income and expenditure account as income. If a normal donation is doubted by the AO about its genuineness, and identity of the donors, the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the income tax act in the case of the trust as it has already been offered as an income. The identical issue arose before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the director of income tax exemption v. Keshav social & charitable foundation [2005] 146 Taxman 569/278 ITR 152 wherein the Hon'ble High Cour....