9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Income-tax Act amounting to ₹ 18,70,003/-. 2. Reason for denial of exemption as assigned by the Assessing Officer vide impugned order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26/12/2006 were that the assessee was required to file audit accounts by 30th June-2004 in Form No.10AA to the DGIT(E) in respect of donation amount received and utilized but the said condition was not fulfilled by the assessee. Therefore, according to Assessing Officer since the assessee has not satisfied one of the conditions as prescribed u/s.80G(5C) pertaining to the amount of donation for earthquake, therefore, the benefits prescribed u/s.12(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 could not be granted to the assessee. With the result, by invoking the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as well as before the A.O. at the time of assessment as well as befre the undersigned during the course of appellate proceedings and evidence of the fact that the same was sent to DGIT (Exemption) Delhi is also enclosed in the form of UPC acknowledgement. It is also noted that the utilization of earthquake relief fund is not questioned by the A.O, he has simply mentioned in his order that Audit Report was to be submitted at DGIT (Exemption) Kolkatta. Thus, to sum up, the appellant has fulfilled the conditions laid down under the provisions of section 80G (5C) of the Act, and hence, there is no case for invoking section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed. 3. On hearing the rival submissions, we have notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 511 (Cal) and (iv) CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 285 ITR 147 (AP), we find no fallacy in the verdict of Learned CIT(Appeals). During the course of argument, a question has also been raised from the side of the Revenue that since the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer in limine, therefore, the veracity of the charitable activity could not be verified at the assessment stage. In response, the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has placed certain orders of the Tribunal to demonstrate that in Assessment Year 2001-02 earlier an order was passed in assessee s own case bearing ITA No.870/Ahd/2003 dated 09/03/2007, through which the matter was restored back to the stage of the Assessing Officer to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
