INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), BERHAMPUR vs. SHREE SHREE SHREE MAHAPURUSH ACHYUTANANDA TRUST, BALAKATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 276/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 November 2023AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly found that the properties did not belong to the assessee-trust and the AO had failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings were confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO. The AO had added the difference in cost of construction for certain properties, applying Section 115BBE. The assessee argued the properties did not belong to the trust.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions made by the AO regarding the cost of construction of properties not belonging to the assessee-trust.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE,Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 28/11/2023Pronounced: 28/11/2023

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.06.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053573978(1), for the assessment year 2013-2014.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. DR that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 29.08.2014 and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was framed on 18.12.2018, wherein the AO had made addition representing the difference between the cost of construction in respect of Databya Chikisalaya and Jatri Nivas and had applied the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition by relying upon Income Tax Inspector submitted in the course of assessment proceedings. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.

3.

In reply, ld. AR submitted that the property did not belong to the trust nor the trust has made any investment during the financial year ending 31.03.2013. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has specifically brought out in para 5.2.3, wherein the Income Tax Inspector has categorically mentioned that the land in respect of Databya Chikisalaya and the post office belonged to the State Government and the building does not belong to the trust. In respect of Jatri Nivas also it has categorically been mentioned that building does not belong to the trust. The Income Tax Inspector has also specifically mentioned as to whom the property belonged to. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be confirmed.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that the fact of buildings and property does not belong to the assessee-trust, was very much before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has given a categorically finding that the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the properties and the investments on these properties during the year under consideration belonged to the assessee and the investment was made out of the unaccounted funds of the assessee-trust. As these findings of the ld. CIT(A) which are clearly factual findings having not been disturbed by the revenue with any supporting evidence, the

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →