My trust could not produce all its donors. Can the Assessing Officer treat the donations as cash credits under section 68 and deny exemption under section 11?
No, on these facts. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. Section 68 had no application because the trust had itself disclosed the Rs.18,24,200 of donations as its income, and every receipt other than a corpus donation is income in a trust's hands. There was therefore full disclosure. The trust had filed a list of donors, and the failure to file a complete list or to produce the donors does not by itself support an inference that unaccounted money was being introduced as donations - particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes and the trust was registered under section 12A.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Madan B. Lokur, J.) on 2005-02-03, reported as [2005] 278 ITR 152 (Delhi). It bears on section 68, section 11, section 12A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
This is the answer to an Assessing Officer who reaches for section 68 against a charitable trust. The point is structural: section 68 deals with a credit in the books that the assessee does not explain and does not offer as income, whereas a trust that shows a donation as its income has disclosed it, so there is nothing for section 68 to catch. The judgment also refuses to convert an evidentiary gap - an incomplete donor list, donors not produced - into a finding of laundering, especially where the money has demonstrably gone into the trust's charitable objects. Read with S. Rm. M. Ct. M. Tiruppani Trust, it puts the enquiry where section 11 puts it: was the income applied to charitable purposes in India, within the permitted accumulation. It is worth noting that the specific charge on anonymous donations came in later and is not considered here.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a charitable trust whose main activity was providing medical advice to the poor and needy in parts of Uttar Pradesh, running mobile vans in which its doctors visited remote villages. For assessment year 1991-92 it received donations of Rs.18,24,200. Asked for the names and addresses of the donors and the mode of receipt, it could not, in the Assessing Officer's view, explain them satisfactorily, and he thought the donors were perhaps fictitious. By assessment order of 29 March 1994 he held the trust had tried to introduce unaccounted money into its books as donations, treated the whole Rs.18,24,200 as a cash credit under section 68, and on that basis denied the benefit of section 11. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the trust's appeal on 23 February 1996, holding the donations had been disclosed as income and 75% of the amount had been spent on charitable purposes, so there was no default, and directing exemption under section 11. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by order of 10 January 2002, holding that since more than 75% of the donations had been spent on charitable purposes the addition was not correct, and accepting that a donation, once received, is deemed received for a charitable purpose unless it is a corpus donation. The Revenue appealed to the High Court, arguing that the trust was laundering black money by converting it into donations.
The appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Section 68 had no application because the trust had in fact disclosed the donations of Rs.18,24,200 as its income, and all receipts other than corpus donations are income in its hands, so there was full disclosure. It had also applied the donations to charitable purposes. Its objects and activities were charitable, being registered under section 12A, and that was not disputed. The failure to file a complete list of donors or to produce them did not necessarily lead to the inference that unaccounted money was being introduced through donation receipts, particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes.
The Court started from S. Rm. M. Ct. M. Tiruppani Trust v. CIT, where the Supreme Court held that under section 11(1) a charitable or religious trust is entitled to have deducted from its total income of the previous year the income it applies to its charitable or religious purposes in India, subject to accumulation up to the specified maximum, which for this year was 25%. On the concurrent findings, more than 75% of the donations had been applied to the trust's objects, so the statutory test was met. On section 11 the only additional requirement pressed was that the donations be voluntary, and here the trust had not merely disclosed the donations but had also submitted a list of donors. The Court declined to treat the incompleteness of that list, or the non-production of the donors, as establishing that unaccounted money was being routed through donation receipts, especially given the undisputed application of the money to charity. Section 68 was inapplicable on its own terms: it addresses an unexplained credit, and here the sum had been offered as the trust's own income, all receipts other than corpus donations being income in a trust's hands, so there had been full disclosure. Since the objects and activities were charitable and the trust was registered under section 12A, the Revenue's characterisation of the exercise as laundering had no factual foundation.
The fact that the complete list of donors was not filed or that the donors were not produced, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, on these facts. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. Section 68 had no application because the trust had itself disclosed the Rs.18,24,200 of donations as its income, and every receipt other than a corpus donation is income in a trust's hands. There was therefore full disclosure. The trust had filed a list of donors, and the failure to file a complete list or to produce the donors does not by itself support an inference that unaccounted money was being introduced as donations - particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes and the trust was registered under section 12A. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Madan B. Lokur, J.) and bears on section 68, section 11, section 12A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2005] 278 ITR 152 (Delhi). This is the answer to an Assessing Officer who reaches for section 68 against a charitable trust. The point is structural: section 68 deals with a credit in the books that the assessee does not explain and does not offer as income, whereas a trust that shows a donation as its income has disclosed it, so there is nothing for section 68 to catch. The judgment also refuses to convert an evidentiary gap - an incomplete donor list, donors not produced - into a finding of laundering, especially where the money has demonstrably gone into the trust's charitable objects. Read with S. Rm. M. Ct. M. Tiruppani Trust, it puts the enquiry where section 11 puts it: was the income applied to charitable purposes in India, within the permitted accumulation. It is worth noting that the specific charge on anonymous donations came in later and is not considered here. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Show the donations in the income and expenditure account as income; a receipt disclosed as income is outside section 68.
The assessee was a charitable trust whose main activity was providing medical advice to the poor and needy in parts of Uttar Pradesh, running mobile vans in which its doctors visited remote villages. For assessment year 1991-92 it received donations of Rs.18,24,200. Asked for the names and addresses of the donors and the mode of receipt, it could not, in the Assessing Officer's view, explain them satisfactorily, and he thought the donors were perhaps fictitious. By assessment order of 29 March 1994 he held the trust had tried to introduce unaccounted money into its books as donations, treated the whole Rs.18,24,200 as a cash credit under section 68, and on that basis denied the benefit of section 11. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the trust's appeal on 23 February 1996, holding the donations had been disclosed as income and 75% of the amount had been spent on charitable purposes, so there was no default, and directing exemption under section 11. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by order of 10 January 2002, holding that since more than 75% of the donations had been spent on charitable purposes the addition was not correct, and accepting that a donation, once received, is deemed received for a charitable purpose unless it is a corpus donation. The Revenue appealed to the High Court, arguing that the trust was laundering black money by converting it into donations. The matter was decided on 2005-02-03 by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Madan B. Lokur, J.). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Section 68 had no application because the trust had in fact disclosed the donations of Rs.18,24,200 as its income, and all receipts other than corpus donations are income in its hands, so there was full disclosure. It had also applied the donations to charitable purposes. Its objects and activities were charitable, being registered under section 12A, and that was not disputed. The failure to file a complete list of donors or to produce them did not necessarily lead to the inference that unaccounted money was being introduced through donation receipts, particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes.
The Court started from S. Rm. M. Ct. M. Tiruppani Trust v. CIT, where the Supreme Court held that under section 11(1) a charitable or religious trust is entitled to have deducted from its total income of the previous year the income it applies to its charitable or religious purposes in India, subject to accumulation up to the specified maximum, which for this year was 25%. On the concurrent findings, more than 75% of the donations had been applied to the trust's objects, so the statutory test was met. On section 11 the only additional requirement pressed was that the donations be voluntary, and here the trust had not merely disclosed the donations but had also submitted a list of donors. The Court declined to treat the incompleteness of that list, or the non-production of the donors, as establishing that unaccounted money was being routed through donation receipts, especially given the undisputed application of the money to charity. Section 68 was inapplicable on its own terms: it addresses an unexplained credit, and here the sum had been offered as the trust's own income, all receipts other than corpus donations being income in a trust's hands, so there had been full disclosure. Since the objects and activities were charitable and the trust was registered under section 12A, the Revenue's characterisation of the exercise as laundering had no factual foundation. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The fact that the complete list of donors was not filed or that the donors were not produced, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts."
It was decided by the High Court on 2005-02-03 and is reported as [2005] 278 ITR 152 (Delhi). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 68, section 11, section 12A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Section 68 had no application because the trust had in fact disclosed the donations of Rs.18,24,200 as its income, and all receipts other than corpus donations are income in its hands, so there was full disclosure. It had also applied the donations to charitable purposes. Its objects and activities were charitable, being registered under section 12A, and that was not disputed. The failure to file a complete list of donors or to produce them did not necessarily lead to the inference that unaccounted money was being introduced through donation receipts, particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes. It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 68, section 11, section 12A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Delhi - Madan B. Lokur, J.. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Establish application: quantify what proportion of the year's income went to the objects, and keep the accumulation within the statutory limit. File whatever donor list you have, with names, addresses and mode of receipt, and explain any gaps; incompleteness is not the same as concealment. Keep the section 12A registration and the record of activities in evidence, since the charitable character of the objects and activities was undisputed here. For years from 2006-07 onwards, check the position on anonymous donations separately; this judgment does not address it.
Still good law. The full judgment was read; it is short and ends in the operative dismissal. It applies the Supreme Court decision in Tiruppani Trust and turns substantially on concurrent findings of fact that more than 75% of the donations were applied to charitable purposes. I have not checked for any later decision considering it. Its reach is limited for later years by section 115BBC, which taxes anonymous donations and applies from assessment year 2007-08, and which this judgment does not consider. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment does not say how incomplete the donor list was or how many donors could not be produced, so the line between an incomplete list and no credible explanation is not drawn. It also does not say what the position would be on the balance of donations that were not applied to charitable purposes. The batch line lists section 115BBC, which did not exist in assessment year 1991-92 and is not mentioned. The source page names only Madan B. Lokur, J., although the judgment is expressed in the plural. The text as harvested renders assessee as assessed throughout, which appears to be an artefact of the source rather than the judgment. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Section 68 had no application because the trust had in fact disclosed the donations of Rs.18,24,200 as its income, and all receipts other than corpus donations are income in its hands, so there was full disclosure. It had also applied the donations to charitable purposes. Its objects and activities were charitable, being registered under section 12A, and that was not disputed. The failure to file a complete list of donors or to produce them did not necessarily lead to the inference that unaccounted money was being introduced through donation receipts, particularly where more than 75% of the donations had admittedly been applied to charitable purposes.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
Our trust was formed weeks ago and has done nothing yet. Can registration be refused for that?
You have a document that says so. Does that settle it?
If the department doubts my shareholders, can it add the money to my income?