9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of profit rate on total receipts and addition of undisclosed TDS and security amounts. 2. Rejection of claim for total exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Application of Profit Rate and Addition of Undisclosed TDS and Security Amounts Facts and Circumstances: The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to give relief by applying a profit rate of 6% on total receipts, reducing the assessed income significantly. The Assessing Officer had originally framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,97,550, making a specific addition of Rs. 1,90,524 due to non-disclosure of TDS and security amounts. Assessment Officer's Findings: The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received gross payments of Rs. 28,49,937, from which Rs. 56,439 was deducted as TDS and Rs. 1,32,406 as security. The net payments reported by the assessee were Rs. 26,60,948, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,90,524 for the shortfall. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's accounting method, which showed security deductions in the year they were received back. The CIT(A) worked out a difference of Rs. 57,974 due to non-inclusion of TDS and applied a 6% net profit rate on total receipts, resulting in a profit of Rs. 1,67,744. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CIT(A) had correctly invoked section 145 and adopted a logical and rational method. The Tribunal found no infirmity in applying a 6% net profit rate, considering it reasonable for a labor contract. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's ground of appeal. Issue 2: Rejection of Claim for Total Exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) Facts and Circumstances: The appellant claimed total exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi), which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The appellant argued that the amendment to the bye-laws restricting voting rights to labor-contributing members was valid and approved by the competent authority. Assessing Officer's Findings: The Assessing Officer found that the appellant did not fulfill all conditions under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) and was only entitled to a statutory deduction of Rs. 20,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). The Assistant Registrar's report stated that the amendment to the bye-laws was not within the Managing Committee's purview. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) held that the Managing Committee's resolution was invalid as the power to amend bye-laws vested only with the General Body. The resolution restricting voting rights was beyond the Managing Committee's jurisdiction, and thus, the exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) could not be allowed. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the resolution was not passed in accordance with the society's bye-laws and was not by the competent authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the voting rights should be restricted only to members contributing their labor, as per the proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(vi). The Tribunal also highlighted that a significant portion of labor was contributed by non-members, disqualifying the society from claiming the exemption. Conclusion: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and dismissed the appellant's claim for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi), upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Final Judgment: Both the revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.
|
