9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance on account of expenses which cannot be treated as application of mind - Held that:- There is no discussion on this addition in the assessment order. The AO has merely made addition without specifying ground on which the addition has been made. Under this fact, such approach of the AO cannot be sustained. Moreover, learned CIT(A) has called a remand report from the AO and no adverse material was placed before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any merit in this ground of the Revenue hence the same is rejected. - ITA No. 897/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - Mr. G. D. Agrawal, President And Mr. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Department by Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate ORDER Per Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Meerut dated 27th November, 2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,95,46,061/- in respect of the cheque presented but not cleared. Against this, the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal whereby he deleted the addition of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- made in respect of and also addition of ₹ 16,95,46,061/- apart from allowing the depreciation. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ground no. 1 is against deletion of addition of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- made towards receipts collected but not shown as income. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the AO and stated that learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. On the contrary, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the receipts can be offered only upon the registration of the property. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record. The learned CIT(A) has decided the issue in para 5.3 is as under:- 5.3. The facts of the case have been considered. A similar issue had a reason in Appeal No. 18/2013-14 in the case of the appellant itself for AY 2010- 11 and had been deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Court held that it was not a case of double deduction. The income of an assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have two be applied for the purposes of the trust. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43) in which it was held that an assessee which had claimed deduction on account of capital expenditure on scientific research cannot claim depreciation thereon, was distinguished. Obviously, that was a case where deduction had been claimed in respect of the cost of an asset and. it was held that deduction, once again, for depreciation on such cost was not permissible. In the cases of exemption under section 12A, the assessee is not allowed any deduction of the capital cost of an asset but the capital cost of the asset is treated as an application of income. In such case, to arrive at the income which has to be applied for charitable purposes, commercial principles of income have to be followed which includes granting of depreciation. References also made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is hereby dismissed. The ground raised by the Revenue is affirmed. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground no. 3 is against allowing excess application of income for charitable purposes to be carried forward. Learned DR supported the orders of the AO and submitted that learned CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the carry forward excess application of income. On the contrary, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee such carry forward is allowable. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that the similar issue came up for hearing and was decided in favour of the assessee authority. We find that the learned CIT(A) has followed the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust Ors (44 DTR 223). The Revenue has not brought any other binding precedent, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(A) and the same is affirmed. 10. Ground no. 4 is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 16,95,46,061/- made by the AO on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
