9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntries mentioned in income and expenditure account by the assessee, in right prospective. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to file of the AO for proper verification and to decide afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being herd to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2566/Del/2013, ITA No. 2870/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM For The Assessee : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. For The Revenue : Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These cross appeals by the department and the assessee are directed against the order dated 01.02.2013 of ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of above amount of ₹ 6.26 crores in income is unwarranted. 4. However, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee made the impugned addition by observing that the computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings did not include this income. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: Addition of ₹ 6,72,30,555/- was bad in law and on facts of the case of the appellant-society- Ld. AO, while computing income of the assessee-society added a sum of ₹ 6,72,30,555/- on account of rent. Above amount of ₹ 6,72,30,555/- comprises of ₹ 6,26,06,411/- + ₹ 46,24,144/-. Kind attention of your ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of Income Tax Return showing rental income which has already been disclosed in the computation of income and those details were available at Annexure-I II of the submission. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the rental income had already been included in the income shown which had been offered and forming part of rental income, therefore, findings of the AO were totally misconceived. 7. Now the department is in appeal. The ld. CIT DR submitted that the income was not shown by the assessee in the books of account. It was further submitted that the assessee did not include the rental income in the computation of income. Therefore, the AO made the addition and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the said ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the instant case, it is noticed that the assessee disclosed the income which was on account of rent receivable and the rent received during the year. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making the impugned addition and the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. We, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 10. Now we will deal with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2870/Del/2013. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of addition of ₹ 2,22,88,491/- made by the AO on account of grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en allowed as the assessee has its registration u/s 12A. But since the assessee is unable to produce the copy of the registration . He further cited various Court decisions in his favour but the facts of these are different from the facts of the assessee s case. 10.2 The assessee s claim is not acceptable because he is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act as discussed in paras 5 to 5.3 above and thus the amount of ₹ 58,85,314/- and ₹ 1,64,03,177/- taken directly to the corpus by the assessee is treated as his income and added to his income. From the above it is clear that it is an admitted fact that assessee created assets for an amount of ₹ 58,85,314/- + ₹ 1,64,03,177 (i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to page nos. 8 11 of the assessee s compilation which are the copies of income expenditure account and submitted that the assessee disclosed in the income expenditure account, the amounts spent for creating the fixed assets by using the grant received from the Government of India. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was wrong and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the same. 15. In her rival submission the ld. CIT DR supported the orders of authorities below. 16. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) had considered the entries mentioned in income and expenditure account by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
