9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on available with him that such sum was spent on the officers / directors of Hinduja Hospital, the question of applicability or non-applicability of Section 13(3) (b) in the context of the provisions contained in Section 13(1) (c)(ii) would arise. When such an issue was never examined by the AO during the original scrutiny assessment, we would be well advised not to carry out an incisive inquiry into the question which would an inquiry, necessarily be factual as well as legal. An opinion of law can be rendered only once facts are conclusively established. It is a settled law that at the stage of examining the validity of notice of reopening of assessment in a Writ Petition, the Court would not, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, go into the sufficiency of the reasons recorded by the AO. Reference in this respect can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd Vs. I.T.O. & Ors. [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT]. The petition is dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2866 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15 which was completed u/S. 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2016 assessing total income at ₹ 4.29 crores, it is observed that the assessee has received of ₹ 1,98,71,842/- from P.D. Hinduja National Hospital Research Centre (PDHNHRC) and shown as Reimbursement of expenses. Hence, the claim of exemption u/s 11 was denied. 4.1 In this regard, the assessee had not furnished any documents regarding agreement between P.D. Hinduja Hospital Reseach Centre (PDHNHRC) during the course of proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 4.2 Definition of Income as per 2(24)(iia) is reproduced as under:- Voluntary contribution received by a trust created wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes [or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) [or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or by any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-clause (via)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof- (i) if such trust or institution has been created or established after the commencement of this Act and under the terms of the trust or the rules governing the institution, any part of such income enures, or (ii) if any part of such income or any property of the trust or the institution (whenever created or established) is during the previous year used or applied, directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-section (3). Section 13(2)(g) reads as under:- 2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clause I and clause (d) of sub-section (1), the income or the property of the trust or institution or any part of such income or property shall, for the purposes of that clause, be deemed to have been used or applied for the benefit of a person referred to in sub-section (3),- (g) if any income or property of the trust or institution is diverted during the previous year in favour of any person referred to in sub-section (3): Provided that this clause shall not apply where the income,or the value of the property or , as the case may be, the aggregate of the income and the value of the property, so diverted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 upon which this petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Naniwadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised following two main contentions:- (i) The Assessing Officer has proceeded on entirely erroneous factual basis. The impugned notice should, therefore, be quashed; (ii) Even going by the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be stated that any income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee had escaped assessment. In other words, the reasons recorded lack validity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer has recorded proper reasons. At this stage, the Court would not examine the sufficiency of the reasons. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we may recall that the impugned notice has been issued within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year in a case where original assessment was framed after scrutiny. It is not the case of the petitioner that the ground on which the Assessing Officer desires to reopen the assessment, came up for discussion during the original scruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
