9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 179 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - assessee had unspent amount of accumulated surplus - As per AO amount could have been accumulated only for the some specific purpose and not for the general purpose - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while relying on the various decisions cited in the order has held that the contention of the AO that the amount could have been accumulated only for some specific purpose and not for the general purposes does not hold good. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue nor has the Revenue placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-40, Delhi dated 31.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15. - Interpretation of provisions of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act regarding accumulated surplus and its utilization for specific or general purposes. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-40, Delhi related to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee, a Charitable Trust, had filed its return of income showing NIL income. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at ?2,04,45,515/-. The Revenue contended that the unspent accumulated surplus of ?2,04,45,515/- from A.Y. 2008-09 was used for administrative expenses instead of the purpose for which it was accumulated. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were related to this issue. 2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had an unspent accumulated surplus from A.Y. 2008-09, which was required to be spent during A.Y. 2014-15. The AO added this unspent amount to the total income of the assessee, stating that the accumulation must be for a specific purpose as per Section 11(2) of the Act. The CIT(A), however, relying on various decisions, held that the unspent amount could be utilized for general purposes and not just specific purposes. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. 3. In the appeal before the ITAT, the Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the unspent accumulated surplus to be used for general purposes. The ITAT, after considering the submissions and materials on record, found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings. The ITAT noted that the Revenue failed to provide any contrary binding decision to support its case. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 4. The ITAT's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act regarding the utilization of accumulated surplus for specific or general purposes. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) correctly applied the law in allowing the unspent amount to be used for general purposes, as supported by various legal precedents. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the ITAT. 5. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, emphasizing that the unspent accumulated surplus could be utilized for general purposes, in line with the provisions of the Act and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
