9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of materials have been received in the subsequent financial year. The invoices are also accounted in the AY 2017-18 only. The assessee has also failed to upload Form-10 within the due date prescribed U/s. 11(2) r.w.s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR also failed to demonstrate before us whether the same expenses have been claimed in the AY 2017-18 also. No documentary evidences are produced before us for non-claiming of the same expenditure in the AY 2017-18. The Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Shree P. Subramoniam Religious Trust [ 2008 (12) TMI 374 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has laid down that merely an advance cannot be treated as the actual application of funds that this advance would be utilized for the purchase of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated as 27/2/2019. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was awaiting response w.r.t corrigendum, and as no response received from Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted the appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 22/10/2020. The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay of and is covered by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court being the relevant period covered by COVID Pandemic Situation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020, dt: 23rd March, 2020 directed that the period of limitation for filing the appeals under general laws and all special laws falling between 15/3/2020 and 28/02/2022 shall be excluded for calculating the delay. We also find that the date of order mentioned in the order of Ld.CIT(A), is erroneous and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the income and expenditure account. Accordingly, the Ld. AO calculated the application of income for charitable purposes at Rs.3,14,71,249/- and disallowed the balance 15% amounting to Rs.19,25,733/- as the assessee has filed Form-10 belatedly on 28/1/2017 for Rs. 8,79,113/-. However, while uploading the assessment order, the Ld. AO erroneously uploaded the total income at Rs. NIL and subsequently revised vide the order U/s. 154 r.w.s 143(3) on 21/12/2018 determining the total income of Rs. 19,25,733. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee s representative filed a written submission stating that the appellant has spent Rs. 22,07,31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the amount. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the amount of Rs. 19,25,733/- as spent for the purpose of the objects and that no amount remained unused for being taxed. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amount of Rs. 19,25,733/- was also actually expended. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that a detailed reply including copies of the invoices which have been received during the assessment year 2017-18 for the advances paid during the AY 2016-17 has been placed before the Bench in the paper book page nos. 18 to 100. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has provided various advances for which the bills are received in the subsequent year an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diture was incurred as stated by the assessee. Admitted facts are that the assessee has also not filed Form-10 to claim accumulation U/s. 11(2) of the Act while filing the return of income U/s. 139(1) of the Act. We also note that the assessee has not filed condonation of delay petition before the Ld. CIT as per the Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20/12/2018. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has incurred certain advances to various suppliers as detailed below: Sl No Name of the person Purpose of credit (Rs.) 1. Bhargavi General Stores 91,100 2. N. Ways Financial Services 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. The Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Shree P. Subramoniam Religious Trust (supra) has laid down that merely an advance cannot be treated as the actual application of funds that this advance would be utilized for the purchase of cement later. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that since the assessee has neither expended the money during the relevant assessment year nor filed Form-10 within the due date prescribed U/s. 139(1) of the Act, the exemption claimed by the assessee is not valid in law and hence the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 9th September, 2022. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
