1996 (11) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged infringement of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 11(5) of the Act due to a loan given to Mahila Hatt.
- Discrepancy in the amount of income applied by the assessee.
- Contesting interest charged under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Infringement of Provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and Section 11(5):
- The assessee appealed against the finding of the CIT (Appeals) regarding the alleged infringement of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 11(5) of the Act due to a loan of Rs. 50,000 given to Mahila Hatt. The assessee argued that the amount was utilized for organizing a seminar cum workshop, aligning with the objects of the society. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of "investment" and "deposit" to conclude that the amount given did not constitute either, as it was intended for a specific purpose and not for generating income or profit. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the loan to Mahila Hatt constituted the application of income in furtherance of the society's objects, thus not violating the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

2. Discrepancy in Income Applied:
- The assessee contended that the revised computation of income showed an application of income at Rs. 7,94,200, whereas the CIT (Appeals) considered it to be Rs. 5,59,188. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) did not consider the revised statement filed by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration of the computation of income as per the revised statement.

3. Interest Charged under Section 139(8) and 217:
- The issue of interest charged under section 139(8) and 217 of the Act was raised by the assessee but was not addressed by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal decided to remand this matter back to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication. As a result, the appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was referred back for reconsideration of the interest charged under the mentioned sections.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the alleged infringement of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 11(5) of the Act, stating that the loan given to Mahila Hatt constituted the application of income. The Tribunal also directed the CIT (Appeals) to reconsider the computation of income and the issue of interest charged under section 139(8) and 217.