9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haritable/religious purposes upto the beginning of the previous year." - The assessee inadvertently shown a wrong figure before the ld. AO and from the perusal of the aforesaid fact, we find that assessee had applied the fund as per the revised schedule by rectifying the same and copy of the same placed before us at page 26 of the Paper Book. Therefore, the alleged fault pointed out by the ld. CIT(E) based on the mistake of fact which crept into while filing column 4 of Schedule-I and it cannot termed as the assessee had surplus fund u/s 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, the apprehension of ld. CIT(E) that assessee has claimed double deduction is erroneous and on wrong assumption of fact. CIT(E) has erroneously usurped the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on this issue. Expenses met out available balance of specific funds reflected under reserve and surplus as alleged by CIT(E) in his revisionary order that assessee has claimed double exemption - Assessee has made a clear calculation by showing that no double exemption of a particular amount has claimed by the assessee. Therefore, view taken by ld. CIT(E) is not correct and liable to be quashed. Assessee has shown a corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of income for the AY 2016-17. As such, accumulated amount of Rs. 23,25,478/- remained unutilized. Since 5 years have elapsed from the year of accumulation, the unapplied amount requires to be added as income u/s. 11(3). However, the Assessing Officer overlooked the issue in assessment. iii. As per the return and the computation sheet furnished for the A.Y. 2016-17, it observe that the assessee has claimed application of Rs, 2,61,68,715/- which included Training, Research and Development Expenses' of Rs. 41,31,330/-. The balance sheet, VE account and the computation sheet for the F.Y. 2015-16 revealed that the said expenditure of Rs, 41,31,330/- included expenditures amounting to Rs. 13,85,984/- which are met out available balance of specific funds reflected under Reserve & Surplus' in the balance sheet including the current year accumulation. The Reserve & Surplus funds have been created from the apportionment of the corpus/accumulation including statutory accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) over the years. Corpus fund received with specific direction u/s 11(1)(d) of the IT. Act, is not available for applications. Similarly, accumulation @ 15% of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of form 10 is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the irrefutable conclusion is that not only the A.O. did not examine the correctness of the claim u/s 11(2) but also failed to take cognizance of the fact that Form-10 was filed belatedly and there was no condonation of delay in filing of Form-10 by the undersigned. Furthermore, the application of assessee for admission of the belated Form 10, filed on 08.02.2021 has been rejected separately, vide order no CITE)Kol/119(2)(b)/AABTS5580N/2020-21/2741-43 dated 22.03.2021. In view of the above facts, the claim of exemption u/s 11(2) cannot be allowed. The assessment Order of the A.O. is, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The A.O. is accordingly directed to compute the income without allowing accumulation u/s 11(2). II Accumulated amount of Rs. 23,25,478/- In its reply assessee stated that schedule I, filled in the ITR was incorrect. In Schedule I of TTR, the amount of accumulation in AY 2011-12 is shown as Rs. 46,502,956/- and the amount of Rs. 23,25,478/-has been utilized till 01.04.2015. However, there is no Surplus and no amount has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an allowable application. The issue is therefore set aside and restore back to the assessing officer to pass an order considering the fact discussed above and compute the income accordingly." 4. The ld. AR submitted before the bench that jurisdiction exercised by ld. CIT(Exemptions) is invalid and against the provisions of law as the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that during the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO called for details which were duly produced by the assessee including Form No. 10 in respect of accumulation of income. The ld. AR further drew our attention to Circular No. 7/2018 and 6/2020 dated 20.12.2018 & 19.2.2020 respectively by which CBDT has authorized the Commissioner of Income Tax to admit the belated applications in Form 10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form 10 is filed after the expiry of time allowed under the relevant provisions of the Act. In the instance case, the assessee submitted Form 10 manually before the AO during the assessment proceeding again filed online on 08.02.2021 to fulfil the requirement of the Act. Therefore, the exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the alleged fault pointed out by the ld. CIT(E) based on the mistake of fact which crept into while filing column 4 of Schedule-I and it cannot termed as the assessee had surplus fund u/s 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, the apprehension of ld. CIT(E) that assessee has claimed double deduction is erroneous and on wrong assumption of fact. In view of the above fact, we are taking note of the relevant contents of page 26 of paper book, we do not find any omission on the part of AO while framing the assessment order on this issue. Therefore, the ld. AO rightly did not draw any adverse inference on this issue which was pointed out as a fault by the ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, in the facts & circumstances of the case as discussed (supra), we find that the ld. CIT(E) has erroneously usurped the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on this issue. Resultantly the same is hereby quashed. 7. The another issue relating to expenses met out available balance of specific funds reflected under reserve and surplus as alleged by ld. CIT(E) in his revisionary order that assessee has claimed double exemption is not correct. The ld. counsel for the assessee in this regard drew to our notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
