9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isregarding the facts of the case. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act by ignoring the fact that as the assessee being assessee as AOP under the head "Business & Profession" and disclosed method of accounting was followed by the assessee, so accrued interest income be treated as part of income of the year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in completely relying on the findings of Hon'ble ITAT and Hon'ble High Court that the charitable status of the assessee has been settled without adjudicating individual additions made by the A.O which was subject matter of appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) of the Act. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer and the exemption u/s 11(1) was denied by invoking the Proviso of section 2(15) and the various additions were made mainly on the ground that the assessee is running the hospital with the motive of profit. Subsequently the registration u/s 12AA(1) of the Act was cancelled u/s 12AA(3) of the Act by the DIT(Exemption) relying on the order of the AO for the A.Y 2008-09. The assessee appealed against the order of the DIT(Exemption). The Tribunal restored the registration vide the order dated 11/05/2012 in ITA No. 913/Del/2012. The department filed the appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26/09/2013 in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer rejected the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act as the assessee being assessed as AOP under the head business and profession. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that all the documents were before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). In-fact, the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.09.2013 has given a detailed finding that there was no change in object and functions of the assessee. Therefore, rejection of the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act was not right on part of Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is submitted that in earlier Assessment Years the Exemption was granted by the Department which was taken into cognizance by the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been examined by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court and there is no adverse finding against the assessee on any matters and as such it is difficult to sustain the order of the AO denying the exemption u/s 11(1) to the assessee and accordingly following the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court the AO is directed to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) with all the consequential benefits and all the additions made by the AO are also consequently deleted." Thus, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). For all the three assessment years the issues are identical, therefore, all the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. In result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
