2017 (8) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Additional accumulation of income u/s. 11(2)(a) - failure to produce any documentary proof for expenditure of ₹ 21 lacs on specific purpose of research activity for which it has been accumulated - Held that - The matter requires verification of the contentions raised by the assessee before the revenue authorities as well as before me i.e. about the utilization of accumulated income in dispute for the purpose of establishing its plea before the AO and AO is at liberty to decide the issue in dispute, after verification of the same, as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and factual correctness of the Assessing Officer's order.
2. Determination of "Net Taxable Income" of ?21,00,000.
3. Failure to produce documentary proof for expenditure of ?21,00,000.
4. Addition of ?21,00,000 to returned income due to non-utilization of accumulated income.
5. Charging of interest under Section 234C.
6. Errors in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
7. Requirement to apply accumulated income within five years.
8. Legality and specificity of the purpose for accumulation of ?21,00,000.
9. Opportunity of being heard by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
10. Summary dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Factual Correctness of the Assessing Officer's Order:
The Assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) as being "bad both in law and on the facts of the case." The AO had processed the return under Section 143(1) and later selected the case for scrutiny, issuing statutory notices. The AO found that the Assessee had an accumulated fund of ?21,00,000 under Section 11(2) from the financial year 2003-04, which was not utilized within the stipulated time.

2. Determination of "Net Taxable Income" of ?21,00,000:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the AO's action in determining the "Net Taxable Income" of ?21,00,000. The AO taxed this amount as it was not utilized within the stipulated period.

3. Failure to Produce Documentary Proof for Expenditure of ?21,00,000:
The AO held that the Assessee failed to produce any documentary proof for the expenditure of ?21,00,000 on the specific purpose of research activity for which it was accumulated. The Assessee argued that the amount was spent during the current year and was eligible for standard deduction under Section 11(1)(a).

4. Addition of ?21,00,000 to Returned Income Due to Non-Utilization:
The AO made an addition of ?21,00,000 to the returned income, holding that the amount accumulated under Section 11(2) for the financial year 2003-04 was not utilized up to the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessee contended that the accumulated income was spent during the current year and should not have been added.

5. Charging of Interest Under Section 234C:
The Assessee argued that the AO erred in charging interest under Section 234C without proper authority under the Act. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment.

6. Errors in the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The Assessee claimed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) suffered from several errors, including incorrect references to sections of the Income Tax Act and incorrect application of relevant provisions.

7. Requirement to Apply Accumulated Income Within Five Years:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the accumulation of ?21,00,000 out of income for the assessment year 2004-05 was required to be applied within five years, i.e., up to assessment year 2009-10. The Assessee argued that the amount was utilized within the stipulated period.

8. Legality and Specificity of the Purpose for Accumulation of ?21,00,000:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the accumulation of ?21,00,000 was without any specific purpose, illegal, and not allowable. The Assessee contended that the amount was accumulated for research activities as per the Memorandum of Association and Rules.

9. Opportunity of Being Heard by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The Assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not provide an opportunity of being heard while holding that the accumulation was without any specific purpose. The Assessee claimed there were no such findings in the assessment order.

10. Summary Dismissal of the Appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The Assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without adequately considering the Assessee's arguments and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the matter required verification of the Assessee's contentions regarding the utilization of the accumulated income. The case was remanded back to the AO for verification, with instructions to decide the issue in dispute as per law, providing an adequate opportunity for the Assessee to be heard. The Assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →