No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad at Bhubaneswar, dated 14.03.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1040706357(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a trust, who is enjoying the benefit of registration u/s.12A & 80G of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee had received corpus donations from M/s Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) in the form of incurrence of capital expenditure of Rs.21,65,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from Container Corporation of India (CCI). It was submitted that as per the MOU between the assessee and Container Corporation of India, the Container Corporation of India has provided Rs.25 lakhs corpus donation to the assessee for the purpose of setting up of tailoring unit for teaching tailoring to backward tribal girls in Orissa. The assessment in the case of the assessee had been completed and the AO had examined the issue of the corpus donations received from the Container Corporation of India and also from M/s KIIT. It was the submission that corpus donations of M/s KIIT was in the form of the construction of an educational building and the purchase of electronic equipments. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(E) issued the show cause notice on 18.01.2022 on the ground that the AO has not done proper verification of the said corpus donations received by the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee had replied to the ld. CIT(E) and had also provided the copy of the MOU between the assessee and the Container Corporation of India along with the details of the building constructed by M/s KIIT for the assessee. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(E) that even if the two corpus donations are treated as the income of the assessee, still the taxable income would be a negative figure and, therefore, there could be no prejudice to the interest of revenue. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(E) without considering the explanation of the assessee had invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on the issue of the verification of the corpus donations. It was further submitted that in page 6 of the order of the ld. CIT(E) passed u/s.263 of the Act, the ld.CIT(E) has held that the AO has wrongly charged interest u/s.244A of the Act and has directed the AO to