Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 1306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cation. We, therefore, consider it judicially expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to carry out necessary verification of the assessee s claim and if on verification, the claim of the assessee is found to be correct and in accordance with law, modify the assessment. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA For the Department : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi ( CIT(A) ) pertaining to Assessment Year ( AY ) 2021- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... PC, Income Tax Department has disallowed on the ground that amount entered at Sl. No. 4vi of Part B-TI (Rs. 1,20,00,33,672/-) is not equal to amount mentioned at Sl. No. 1 of Form 10 (Rs. 1,35,00,00,000/-) and further, stated that hence exemption claimed for accumulation is allowable to the extent of amount entered in Form. However, amount considered by Centralized Processing Center as Rs. 0 adjacent to Error Description under the head As Computed contradicting its own statement. 3. The brief facts as narrated by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 1.2. The appellant filed ROI on 11.03.2022 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil and claimed refund of Rs. 1,68,51,181/- after claiming exemption u/s. 11(2) for an amount of Rs. 120,00,33,672/-. At the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00,33,672/- in rectification order under section 154/143(1) dated 24.01.2023 passed by CPC Bangalore, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The assessee made submission which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 of his appellate order. During appeal proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to explain why there was a difference in figures in computation of income in return of income and in Form 10 in respect of total amount of accumulated funds under section 11(2) for the AY 2021-22. The assessee submitted reply which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 11-12 of the appeal order. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded his observation and findings in para 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 which is reproduced hereunder:- 4.3.4. In this regard, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... UCO Bank 5,30,000 5,60,000 Indian Overseas Bank 2,60,90,814 2,32,10,262 Union Bank of India (UBI) 1,29,49,016 1,29,48,416 SUB-TOTAL(III-A) 10,72,07,471 5,96,73,718 (8) Fixed Deposits with institutions other than Banks PNB-HFL 48,97,50,000 48,78,00,000 SUB-TOTAL(III-B) 48,97,50,000 48,78,00,000 (C) Fixed Deposits with institutions/Banks/Others Others 14,10,42,529 NOT GIVEN SUB-TOTAL(III-C) 14,10,42,529 0 TOTAL(I+II+III) 135,00,00,000 1,10,94,73,718 Since the appellant has accumulated Rs. 110,94,73,718/- in the modes specified u/s 11(5) as evidenced, which is lower than the amount of Rs. 120,00,31,900/- required as per the section 11(2), the deduction u/s 11(2) is allowable only on the amount of Rs. 110,94,73,718/-. The remaining amount of Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntion that the Ld. CIT(A) did not ask for clarification from the assessee for alleged discrepancy found by him while matching the details of investment with evidence furnished. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR asserted that the CPC Bangalore as also the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessee had duly complied with the provisions of section 11(2) as Form 10 was e-filed before the specified due date. 8. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have carefully considered the submission of the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. In our view, the claim of the assessee needs verification. We, therefore, consider it judicially expedient to restore the matter back .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates