9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otality of the facts deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO for adjudication in accordance with law, after proper verification from the material available on the record. We also direct to verify the amount of TDS which was claimed to be at ₹ 4,52,54,823/- while the amount considered was at ₹ 4,51,95,563/-. The AO shall provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - S.A. No. 252/Del/2018 (I.T.A. No. 2156/Del/2018) - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY: SH. VED JAIN, ADVOCATE SH. ASHISH CHADHA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A. M. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the above disallowance merely on account of error in punching of certain information in the Form ITR-7. v. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance ignoring the Statutory Auditor s Reports and other evidences filed by the assessee to justify its claim. vi. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the above disallowances despite the fact that no such disallowances have been made in the preceding assessment years and the assessee is consistently claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at ₹ 108,78,36,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee s professional while filing the ITR failed to punch the amount of ₹ 98,57,10,000/- under point no. 9 (v) of the ITR 7 (represented by equivalent amount on account of the amount of income of the previous year accumulated / set apart for application to charitable / other purposes to the extent the said income did not exceed 15% of the income for the assessee for the captioned assessment year) but the relevant forms, reports and resolutions etc., such being Form No. 10, 10 B and 10 BB were already furnished electronically wherein the said amount of ₹ 98,57,10,000/- was duly reflected and claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under section 11(2) had not been invested or deposited in modes specified under section 11(5). She, therefore, did not find infirmity in the intimation of the CPC Bangalore for not allowing the amount claimed. As regards to the non granting of permissible deduction / allowance @ 15% of the income of the assessee in accordance with section 11(1)(a) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) observed that the said section provides that income from property held under trust will be exempted provided the income is applied for charitable purposes to the extent of 85 per cent or more. The learned CIT(A) further observed that the total of the amounts mentioned in column 9 of the ITR in part T-1 pertaining to the application of the income came to ₹ 558 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the income was also filed as an attachment to Form no. 10 BB, a reference was made to page no. 127 to 130 of the assessee s paper book. It was also contended that in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act neither the benefit of ₹ 98,57,10,000/- as amount being upto 15% of the income was provided to the assessee and nor the claim of accumulation 10,21,26,000/- was permitted despite of the fact that the claim was duly made in the ITR. It was also pointed out that the benefit of TDS deducted at ₹ 4,52,54,823/- as claimed in the ITR was wrongly given at ₹ 4,51,95,563/-. 8. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). 9. We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
