9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents, the CIT(A) had called for the remand report and after getting the remand report, the explanation of the assessee was called for and the rejoinder was filed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be established that the CIT(A) has accepted the new evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, we reject the grounds of appeal of the revenue. - ITA No. 336/CTK/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2021 - Chandra Mohan Garg , Member ( J ) And Manish Borad , Member ( A ) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. K. Gautam , CIT ( DR ) ORDER Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A), II, Bhubaneswar dated 27.3.2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since, there was no response from the side of the respondent-assessee to oppose the condonation petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 5. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the record of the case. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue as under: For assessment year 2009-10, the appellant had filed its return in ITR-7 showing taxable income of Nil after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act on 23.12.2011 by making an addition of ₹ 34,58,752/-. The additions were made under the heads of land development (₹ 7,52,136), loans and advance (₹ 9,51,120/-), G.B. meeting expenses (₹ 2,94, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies are charitable and they conform to the prescriptions of Sec. 11(2), Sec. 11(5), etc. without violating Sec. 13. Not only that there have been many decisions from the High Courts, of late, the ITAT Cuttack Bench itself has elaborately dealt with the matter in the following decisions: i. M/s. Human Resource Development and Management Trust (ASBM Trust) (ITA No. 127/CTK//2011 and CO. No. 14/CTK/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08) ii) M/s. Silicon Institute of Technology [ITA No. 316/CTK/2011 a CO. No. 18/CTK/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08] iii. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos. 86, 87 88/CTK.)/2009 for A/Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05 2005-06] 4. In the remand report, the AO has not objected to the written submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing two issues and I would restrict my discussion to those two points only. 5. As regards the chairman's visit expenses, the AO had observed during the assessment that the appellant trust had spent ₹ 4,79,000/- under the head governing body meeting expenses and ₹ 55,016/- towards chairman's visit expenses. The allegation of the AO was that the evidence of such expenses could not be produced and considering the venue and the number of members attending the meeting, the expenses appeared to be considerably on the higher side. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 50% on estimate. It is interesting to note that it was not the case of the AO that there was any excess remuneration paid or any expenditure was incurred for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, payment had been incurred for Dr. R.K. Mishra, Chairman of the trust who had come from USA. 5.2. Considering the status of the members of the governing body for whom the expenditure had been incurred and their regular practices regarding per diem , this is not an unusual expenditure at all. Secondly, this was not a Remuneration paid in excess to any member covered u/s. 13, nor had this resulted in any benefit to any of the concerned members so as to invite the violation of Sec. 13. The aforesaid explanation was available to the AO during the remand proceedings and has been considered but he has not appreciated it in proper perspective. In my view in this regard there is no contravention of sec. 13 at all. 6. Under the Lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransport service. Payments for the bus hiring and fuel of the bus have been made and are evidenced. Whether or not there is any agreement with the bus owner is of no consequence for taking a decision on the entitlement u/s. 11. It is not the case of the AO that the payment had been made in excess, much less, that the payment had been in any way in contravention of the provision of Sec. 11 to Sec. 13. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that considering the entire discussion in the assessment order read with AR's written submission and the remand report, absolutely no case has been made out by the AC to deny the benefit u/s. 11 to the trust. Therefore, I direct the AO to allow the benefit and compute incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
