9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any nexus with evidence that these amounts were really provided and kept with the office bearer for the purposes of services rendered by the third person to the assessee society as same has been adjusted in the month of April, 2011. Therefore, it is clear cut default U/s 13 but as various ITATs as well as Hon'ble High Courts held that if there is violation of Section 13 read with Section 11, MMR can be applied to that sum, which was considered U/s 13 as violated during the year, the assessee’s advance 1,54,880/-. Therefore, by following the decision cited by the assessee particularly decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT Vs Working Women’s Forum (2015 (9) TMI 1447 - SUPREME COURT) and Jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing treatment thereafter, which was not considered by him and assessed the society at surplus shown in the income and expenditure account oat ₹ 20,51,064/-. 2. The assessee society filed its return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29/09/2009 declaring NIL income. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a registered society constituted on 24/11/1967 which was registered U/s 12A of the Act by the CIT w.e.f. 31/1/2002 vide certificate issued on 14/6/2002. The society is also registered U/s 80G of the Act vide certificate issued on 13/9/2007. The ld Assessing Officer further held that on examination of books of account, it is found that certain advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence the assessee had no option but to show the adjustment entry in April, 2011 as only the current year books of account can be modified. The assessee had declared surplus of ₹ 20,51,064/- in the consolidated income and expenditure account for the year ended on 31/3/2009. Since the benefit of Section 11 was not given by the Assessing Officer and assessee is not allowed to accumulate 15% of income. The application of the income against the investment in fixed assets was also not allowed. Accordingly, surplus of ₹ 20,51,064/- was held taxable by the Assessing Officer. He further relied on the Hon'ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench decision in the case of Smt. Gomti Devi Banarsi Das Vaid Charitable Trust Vs. ITO 16 ITD 308 wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices or for repayment of unsecured loan taken from some persons. ₹ 68,000/- was paid to Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma for repayment of unsecured loan taken by the society from various persons, which was adjusted in the books of account on 15/4/2011. ₹ 50,000/- was paid to Shri Kanta Prasad Mishra and ₹ 36,880/- to Smt. Manjulata Sharma for making onwards payment to Shubh Advertising and Marketing/Bhavana Traders, which was utilized for that purpose but adjusted in the books of account on 18/4/2011/25/04/2011. This was explanation before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, there is no violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Without prejudice to above submission, it was further a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re income. He further relied on the following case laws:- (i) CIT Vs Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (2014) 227 Taxman 369 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) decision dated 19/9/2014. (ii) Cit Vs. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230 (Kar.) (iii) CIT Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust (2015) 230 Taxman 0066 (Guj) (HC). (iv) DIT (Exemption) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust 249 ITR 533 (Bom) He further argued that this issue has also been considered by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Santokba Durlabh Ji Trust Fund Vs ITO in ITA No. 169/JP/2112 order dated 5/11/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 and in the case of M/s Rajkala Charitable Trust Vs ACIT in ITA No. 140/JP/2015 dated 28/4/2016. The ld AR finall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if there is violation of Section 13 read with Section 11, MMR can be applied to that sum, which was considered U/s 13 as violated during the year, the assessee's advance ₹ 1,54,880/-. Therefore, by following the decision cited by the assessee particularly decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT Vs Working Women's Forum (supra) and Jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of M/s Santokba Durlabh Ji Trust Fund Vs ITO (supra) are squarely applicable. Accordingly, the ld Assessing Officer is directed to tax @ MMR for ₹ 1,54,880/- and allow the benefit of Section 11 for remaining amount as claimed in the return by the society. Hence, the assessee's appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
