9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1997-98. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer was justifying in dropping the reopened assessments under an order dated 15.03.2005 without recording any reasons by recording its own reasons for the first time in its order presuming the reasons on which the Assessing Officer would have passed an order? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a society registered under Section 12A of the Act. During the course of the proceedings for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act, the assessee had filed copies of statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The tribunal by an order dated 05.09.2008 inter alia held that contention of the assessee that they were sending accounts to Mumbai for the purpose of consolidation is correct and the aforesaid fact finds place in the order passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) under Section 263 of the Act. It was further held that assessee was registered under Section 12A of the Act and accounts were being submitted along with ISKON, Mumbai. It was further held that Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) has not found anything wrong with the accounts for the financial year 1996-97. 4. It was further held that the assessing officer applied his mind on the basis of the facts and found that no income has escaped assessment for the Assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Court in W.A.No.595/2007 has also been referred to and our attention has been invited to paragraph 6 of the aforesaid decision and it has been pointed out that the return of income was filed for the first time in the year 2000-01 showing opening corpus fund of Rs. 39.59 Crores in the balance sheet. It is also urged that corpus fund is not taxable. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Section 11(1)(d) of the Act where the finding has been recorded that amount in question is part of corpus fund. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 263 of the Act were ab initio void and the tribunal has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done at Mumbai and assessment was completed and exemption under Section 11 of the Act was granted. The fact that assessee was sending accounts to Mumbai is recorded in the order under Section 263 passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai. The relevant extract has been reproduced by the tribunal in para 4.5 of the order, which is reproduced below for facility of reference: "Up to the asst. year 2000-01, the assessee have included complete accounts of its Bangalore Branch functioning from Hare Krishna Hill in Rajajinagar, Bangalore in its final audited accounts." 9. Thus, the accounts were being submitted along with ISKON, Mumbai. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) has not found anything wrong in the accounts f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
