High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Shyama Shyam Dham Samiti Kripalu Kunj
Section 69
Asst. Year 1996-97
R.K. Agrawal & Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 250 of 2006
13th August, 2008
Counsel Appeared : Shambhu Chopra, for the Revenue JUDGMENT
By the court :
The present appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, arises out of the order of the Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” dt. 24th Jan., 2006, relating to the asst. yr. 1996-97. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :
The respondent-assessee is a trust registered under s. 12A of the Act. During the period 1st April, 1996, to 31st March, 1996, relevant to the assessment year in question, i.e., 1996-97 it had received 111 plots of land by way of gift/donation from 46 donors. All the 46 donors had purchased the land, which they had gifted, through registered sale deeds sometimes during the period 1992-94. They had gifted the land by way of registered gift deeds and the value of the plots so gifted came to be Rs. 3,35,39,387. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49,51,161 towards purchase of stamp papers and registration charges for execution of the gift deeds. The assessing authority added the amount towards the value of the land and expenses as unexplained investment under s. 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition which order has been affirmed by the Tribunal. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Learned standing counsel submitted that the donors were not produced before the assessing authority for cross-examination and the summons issued under s. 131 of the Act remained unanswered. In the circumstances he submitted that the investment made in the land has rightly been added in the hands of the assessee. The submission is wholly misconceived.
Admittedly, 46 donors had purchased the plots of land through registered sale deeds and the same were mutated in their names and sub-sequently out of love and affection they have donated the land to the assessee-trust through registered gift deeds though the expenses on registration charges and stamp papers were incurred by the assessee. There is no question of unexplained investment in the acquisition of the plots in question, which have been received by way of gift. The Tribunal has rightly upheld the deletion of the addition so made. So far as item pertaining to Rs. 14,74,350 is concerned we find that the aforesaid amount was given by the assessee-trust to one M/s Sadhna Bhawan Trust, Allahabad, which is also registered under s. 12A of the Act. The said donation given by one trust to another trust is treated as an expenditure for religious and charitable purposes under the Act and, therefore, could not have been added under the head “Income from other sources”. Now, remains the last item pertaining to Rs. 5,50,000 which the assessee had distributed among poor persons in cash. It may be mentioned here that the assessee is a very big trust and has a large following and if on some occasion it has distributed some cash to the poor persons it cannot be said that the expenditure was not incurred; more so, when the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the expenditure was actually incurred. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the find- ings recorded by the Tribunal do not give rise to any substantial questions of law as they are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 323 ITR 299]
