2019 (12) TMI 439 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - HELD THAT - AO was statutorily required to make the assessment under Section 143(3) after scrutiny and not in a summary manner as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 143. AO is therefore, required to act fairly while accepting or rejecting the claim of the assessee in cases of scrutiny assessments. AO should protect the interests of the revenue and to see that no one dodged the revenue and escaped without paying the legitimate tax. AO is not expected to put blinkers on his eyes and mechanically accept what the assessee claims before him. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated and the genuineness of the claims made in the return. The order passed by the AO becomes erroneous when an enquiry has not been made before accepting the genuineness of the claim which resulted in loss of revenue. In the present case, the main object of the assessee is to offer relief to the poor. However, the assessee is running kuri business. Hence, it is a profit making activity and not incidental to the attainment of the objects of the Trust. By applying income from kuri business for charitable purposes, the assessee cannot say that its prime object is to give relief to the poor. In our opinion, the CIT(E) is justified in setting aside the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeals of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 regarding the exemption under Section 11 on income from Kuri business.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer's order was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it did not consider all issues related to the income from the Kuri business. The CIT(E) observed that the Assessing Officer only considered foreman's commission, while the total receipts from the Kuri business exceeded the exemption limit. The CIT(E) held that the assessment order was erroneous and invoked Section 263 of the IT Act.

2. The assessee argued that as a charitable institution, the income from the Kuri business was utilized for the trust's main object of relief to the poor. The AR relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the income generated from the business was incidental to the trust's objectives and thus eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

3. The CIT(E) highlighted the amendments prohibiting business activities unless incidental to the trust's objectives. The CIT(E) found that running a Kuri business was not incidental to the trust's main objective of relief to the poor. The CIT(E) emphasized the need for business activities to be directly related to the trust's objectives to qualify for exemption.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the claims made by the assessee regarding the income from the Kuri business. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E) that the income from the Kuri business was not incidental to the trust's objectives and upheld the order setting aside the assessment for reevaluation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, affirming the CIT(E)'s decision that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment regarding the assessment of income from the Kuri business for the relevant assessment years under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.