Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1118 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Exemption u/s 11 - certain payments out of trust money which were in violation of provisions of sections 11 to 13 - Trust has deviated from its core objective from promoting the education and has made it a commercial business by paying commission to agents by diverting the Trust funds for personal benefits of the Trustees - HELD THAT - The order passed by the AO accepting the return of income does not make any reference to any of the arguments put forward on behalf of the assessee and has merely accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. In fact, the assessment of the sum of ₹ 10,34,000/- was on protective basis in the hands of Thomas P. John and therefore why substantive addition was not made on the assessee ought to have been set out by the AO in his Order of Assessment. As decided in INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT If the order of the AO does not disclose the basis of his conclusion, then jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act can be ignored. Therefore, the CIT was justified in directing the AO to examine the allowability of these items of expenditure. The assessee is always at liberty to show as to how the material found in the survey was not sufficient to make any additions in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to violations of provisions under sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the AO properly considered impounded materials during the assessment. 3. Whether the CIT's decision to set aside the AO's order for AY 2016-17 was justified. 4. Whether the Tribunal correctly upheld the CIT's decision. Issue 1: The appeal concerned the Assessment Year 2016-17 where the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order accepting the return of income filed by the assessee, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The AO issued a notice pointing out violations of provisions under sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act based on impounded documents from a survey. The Central Income Tax Commissioner (CIT) found the AO's order erroneous as it did not address certain impounded materials showing diversion of trust funds for personal benefits, leading to protective assessment of income in another individual's hands. The CIT directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the impounded materials. Issue 2: The assessee contended that the impounded NR vouchers did not belong to them but to an individual trustee, Mr. Thomas P John. The AO accepted the assessee's reply and completed the assessment without considering the impounded materials. However, the CIT found this approach erroneous, as the impounded materials indicated violations of statutory provisions. The Tribunal noted that the AO ignored the impounded materials while passing the assessment order for AY 2016-17 but considered them for AY 2017-18, leading to a finding of the AO's error and prejudice to revenue. Issue 3: The CIT set aside the AO's order for AY 2016-17, citing the failure to consider impounded materials that evidenced violations of statutory provisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision, emphasizing the importance of the AO providing reasons for conclusions in the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to a Karnataka High Court judgment that highlighted the necessity for the AO to support findings with reasons, especially in cases involving tax relief. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT's directive for the AO to re-examine the allowability of expenditure based on the impounded materials. Issue 4: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the CIT's decision to set aside the AO's order for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT's reasoning that the AO's failure to disclose the basis of conclusions warranted the examination of impounded materials for potential additions in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal aligned with the Karnataka High Court's view that orders lacking reasoning could be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's directive for a fresh assessment order, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of impounded materials. ---
|