THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

आदेश /O R D E R

Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada in Appeal No.10202/CIT(A)/VJA/2018-19 dated 25.11.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2016-17.

2 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

2.1. The AO verified the Form 26AS and from the form 26AS, the AO found that the assessee has received the sum of Rs.50,26,78,635/- and

3 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

admitted the receipts of Rs.37,74,16,941/- thus, there was a difference of Rs.12,52,61,694/- on which the assessee has claimed the credit for TDS u/s 194C for whole amount of Rs.1,00,90,251/-. Since, there was a difference in gross receipts and the admitted receipts the AO made the addition of Rs.12,52,61,694/- on account of short admission of receipts from BCCI. The AO has assessed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.26,71,55,964/- as under : Excess of income over 19,14,77,837/- expenditure as discussed in (-) 4,95,83,567/- para 6.1. Less : Depreciation allowed as discussed in Para 6.3. 14,18,94,270/- (2) Short admission of 12,52,61,694/- Reimbursements & grants received from BCCI as discussed in Para 7 Assessed Income 26,71,55,964/-

4 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

Particulars of Income Amount (Rs.) BCCI Reimbursements & grants 37,74,16,941 Income from investments and deposits 4,25,02,854 Income from India – Srilanka T20 match 2,50,08,563 Annual subscriptions received 10,000 Interest on IT refund 17,09,125 Rent received from stadium complex 20,07,770 Income from IPL matches 27,36,287 Total 45,13,91,540 10. It was further observed that the BCCI reimbursements & grants of Rs.37,74,16,941/- consisted of annual grants from BCCI of Rs.13,50,00,000/-, share of media rights income from BCCI of Rs.18,66,89,642/- and reimbursement of expenses of Rs 5,57,27,299/-. It was observed that the assessee society is a full-fledged member of BCCI as per the Memorandum and Rules & Regulations of BCCI and the MOA of the assessee. The assessee conducts representative matches allotted by the BCCI and the expenditure incurred by the assessee for conducting the matches is reimbursed by BCCI. In response to a specific query raised during the assessment proceedings regarding the existence of any agreement between BCCI and the assessee with regard to the financial support extended to the assessee by BCCI by way

5 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

of grants & reimbursement's, it was stated by the assessee that there is no specific agreement/ MOA with the BCCI and that the grants & reimbursements are given to the, assessee as per the policies of BCCI. In the absence of any agreement / MOU, it was inferred by the AO that there is a significant understanding between the assessee and BCCI by which the telecasting rights are assumed by the BCCI and the match expenses are reimbursed to the assessee by BCCI.

6 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

Rs.14,18,94,270/-. With regard to the difference in gross receipts declared by the assessee in Form 26AS, the assessee filed written submissions reconciling the differences before the CIT(A). After considering the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) found that there was no difference or short admission of receipts and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. 4. Against which the department has filed appeal before this Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal : i. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee. ii. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.14,18,94,270/- towards income from business by allowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. iii. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.12,52,61,694/- towards short admission of receipts from BCCI holding that the same was made without affording any opportunity to the assessee when the same was as per the Form 26AS. iv. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the revised Form 26AS filed by the assessee after the assessment proceedings in contravention to Rule 46A of the IT Rules which were not available before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. v. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing of the case.

7 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that this issue is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2012-13.

8 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

Act. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) from para No.21 to 27 which reads as under : “21. On careful examination of the facts of the case and the judicial precedents cited by the assessee, it is seen that the contention of the assessee is acceptable. It is noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam held in the assessee’s own case for A.Ys.2010-11 to 2012-13 in I.T.A.No.93 & 241/Viz/2015 and ITA No.01/Viz/2016 vide order dated 10.11.2017 that the AO is not correct in rejecting the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. It was held that all the receipts of the assessee were received in connection with the sport of cricket and the AO is not justified in observing that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of business activities. The relevant part of the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal is reproduced as under : 18. In this context, it is necessary to examine what are the receipts of the assessee and how assessee has been incurred towards the objects. The assessee is receiving grants from BCCI partly as reimbursements for various tournaments conducted by the assessee. The assessee has already constructed a stadium at Visakhapatnam suitable for conducting „test matches‟. During the year under consideration, the assessee has also commenced construction of stadiums at various places like Mangalagiri, Kurnool & Kadapa. During the year, it has also acquired land at Nellore for the purpose of constructing a stadium. The assessee has admitted the incomes under the major heads such as BCCI reimbursements of ₹ 20,64,17,339/- and interest of ₹ 1,26,10,435/- on FDR‟s & SB accounts. Out of these receipts, the assessee incurred expenditure towards conducting various tournaments, grants to District associations for conducting league tournaments and development of game and other heads such as Administrative & Maintenance. From the above, it is very clear that the receipts received by the assessee in relation to sports of cricket and also incurring expenses towards development of the stadiums, which is also related to sports of cricket and also clearing the land for the purpose of construction of stadium which is also related to the sports of a cricket. Certain funds are granted to the District Associations for the purpose of development of cricket sports. Therefore, all the receipts received by the assessee are incurred in connection with sports of the cricket. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in observing that the activities of the assessee are business activities. 19. We find that the Assessing Officer simply observed that the activities of the assessee are converted into business activities without making any enquiry, which object is converted into business. Simply making observations without recording the reasons, is not a sufficient to constitute that the assessee is converted from charitable to business activity. Therefore,

9 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

the observations of the Assessing Officer are not correct and it has to be rejected. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above, the Assessing Officer is not correct in rejecting exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act also not correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Thus, ld. CIT(A) has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also details submitted by the assessee, directed the Assessing Officer to allow claim under section 11 of the Act to the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 20. So far as case-law relied on by the assessee in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has only dealt with the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA (3) of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has denied exemption under section 11 of the Act. In our opinion, the case law relied on by the assessee has no application to the facts of the case. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the assessee has violated sections 11, 12 & 13 of the Act, the case-law relied on by him in the case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute & another (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 22. Further it is noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam once again held in the assessee’s own case for A.Ys 2013-14 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 279, 280 & 368/Viz/2018 vide order dated 18.01.2019 that the dominant object of the assessee is to develop the game of cricket and conducting of International matches on behalf of BCCI is incidental to the main activities carried on by the assessee. It was held that the activities carried on by the assessee cannot be considered as commercial in nature so as to attract the provisions of sec.2(15) of the Act. It was held that the assessee did not carry on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business and the proviso to sec.2(15) has no application to the facts of the assessee’s case. It was accordingly held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of exemption u/s 11 as well as sec.10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal is reproduced as under : 13. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 14. The assessee is a Andhra Cricket Association and has been granted registration under section 12A w.e.f. 01/04/1993 by the Revenue and approval under section 10(23C)(iv) dated 27/02/2009 by considering the following objects:- a) To maintain a general control of the game of cricket in the state and give its decision in all matters concerning the game either when referred to or SUO MOTO.

10 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

b) To spread the game throughout the state by organizing tournaments such as Inter-District, Inter-Zonal, Inter School and Inter- Association matches, to educate young sportsmen in the game generally and also in the field of physical culture and the spirit of sportsmanship. c) To provide, acquire and maintain suitable places, grounds, club houses and other localities to afford facilities for cricketers and to run a journal devoted to sports in general and cricket in particular. d) To construct stadia, acquire suitable playgrounds and other assets required for the promotion of the game of cricket. e) To impart physical education through the medium of cricket. f) To spread the ideals of cricket and all that it stands for throughout the length and breadth of its area by establishing academies for coaching and conducting coaching camps and for by arranging schools for coaching etc. g) To regulate and control the game of cricket etc. etc From the above, it is clear that the main objects of the assessee are relating to development of game of cricket and to impart physical education through the medium of cricket and to regulate and control the game of cricket in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. For that purpose, the activities carried by the assessee is treated as charitable in nature and 12A registration is granted and not only that, by considering the very same objects, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has granted approval under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The activities carried by the assessee from the beginning are same and no fresh activities are undertaken by the assessee. This fact is not disputed by the department. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee selling tickets in respect of international cricket games and also received reimbursements from the BCCI which is commercial in nature. The Assessing Officer has further noted that the assessee has reserved boxes for eminent persons of public life without cost. Therefore, the activity carried by the assessee hits by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and therefore the assessee is not entitled for his income as exempt under section 11 as well as 10(23C) of the Act. We find that the assessee owned a cricket stadium which is constructed for the purpose of development of sport of cricket. The assessee being a Member of BCCI, hosting matches which are conducted by BCCI, expenditure for conducting the matches claimed by the assessee as reimbursement from the BCCI. The assessee is selling the tickets on behalf of the BCCI, therefore, selling of tickets by the assessee cannot be considered as commercial activity. The main intention of the assessee is to develop the game of the cricket. Sometimes, the matches sponsored by the BCCI, conducted in the assessee’s stadium and for that purpose tickets are sold and expenses incurred collected as reimbursement. The selling of the tickets by the assessee is only on behalf of the BCCI. The Assessing Officer has also pointed out that in respect of selling of tickets of the cricket match,

11 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

BCCI paid service tax. Therefore, BCCI is similar to the assessee therefore assessee’s activity cannot be treated as charitable activity. We find that international matches hosted by the assessee in its stadium on behalf of the BCCI and for that purpose tickets are sold on behalf of the BCCI, whatever expenses are incurred were collected as reimbursement, the payment of service tax by the BCCI nothing to do with the assessee’s activity. The activity of the association is to conduct the training programme, coaching classes for the students at district level and state level. This is the main object of the assessee. So far as conducting international matches are concerned, whenever it is sponsored by the BCCI once or twice in a year, the assessee has to undertake as per the directions of the BCCI. The assessee to achieve his objects i.e. development of the game of cricket throughout Andhra Pradesh, it requires certain funds, unless funds are available it is not possible for the assessee to achieve its objects. Therefore, the assessee is already having a stadium and matches are conducted on behalf of the BCCI and the expenses incurred were collected as reimbursement and also certain voluntary donations. Therefore, dominant object of the assessee is to develop the game of the cricket and conducting training programme, coaching classes for the students at district level and state level. So far as conducting international matches on behalf of the BCCI is incidental to the main activities carried by the assessee. So far as expenditure incurred by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out anything that expenditure incurred is not related to the objectives of the assessee. The Assessing Officer simply observed that the activities carried by the assessee is commercial in nature, but nowhere he has substantiated with establishing fact that the activity carried by the assessee is commercial in nature. We find that the assessee has incurred expenditure in relation to the objects of the association and also received reimbursement from BCCI in connection with the objects of the assessee-association. Therefore, the activities carried by the assessee cannot be considered as a commercial in nature and not attracts the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. We find that the assessee is not providing any service to trade, commerce and business and therefore, in our opinion, the provision to section 2(15) has no application. For the sake of convenience, proviso to section 2(15) is extracted as under: “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity, unless— (i) such activity is undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object of general public utility; and

12 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

(ii) the aggregate receipts from such activity or activities during the previous year, do not exceed twenty per cent of the total receipts, of the trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. A bare reading of the above proviso, it is clear that if the assessee involves in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then proviso to section 2(15) shall attract. In the present case, the assessee is a charitable association carrying with the object of development of game of cricket and not involved in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business nor rendered any service in relation to any trade commerce or business. Therefore, proviso to section 2(15) has no application to the assessee’s case. 15. The coordinate bench of the Visakhapatnam tribunal has considered the activities carried by the assessee in the case of assessee itself for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 93 & 241/VIZ/2015 & ITA No. 01/VIZ/2016, dated 10/11/2017 and held that income admitted by the assessee under the major heads, such as BCCI reimbursements, interest on FDR and savings bank accounts. Out of these receipts, the assessee incurred expenditure towards conducting various tournaments, grants to district associations for conducting league tournaments and development of game and other heads, such as Administrative & Maintenance. From the above, it is clear that the receipts received by the assessee is in relation to sports of cricket and also incurred expenses towards development of stadium which is also related to supports of cricket and also clearing the land for the purpose of construction of stadium which is also related to sports of cricket, certain funds are granted to the district association for the purpose of development of cricket or sports, therefore all the receipts received by the assessee are incurred in connection with the sports of the cricket. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in observing that the activities of the assessee are business activities and we upheld the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 16. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) & others in W.P.(C) NO. 1872/2013, dated 22/01/2015 has considered the scope of proviso to section 2(15) and concluded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by their Lordships as under:- 58. In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the

13 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act, then the proviso would be at risk of running fowl of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime objective has to be seen. If the dominant and prime objective of the institution, which claims to have been established for charitable purposes, is profit making, whether its activities are directly in the nature of trade, commerce or business or indirectly in the rendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, then it would not be entitled to claim its object to be a 'charitable purpose'. On the flip side, where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits, but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established for charitable purposes. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the proviso to section 2(15) and held that if the dominant and prime objective of the institution, which claims to have been established for charitable purposes, is profit making, whether its activities are directly in the nature of trade, commerce or business or indirectly in rendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, then it would not be entitled to claim its object to be a ‘charitable purpose’. On the flip side, where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits, but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established charitable purposes. In the present case, the main object of the assessee-association from the beginning of its inception is only to develop the game of the cricket throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh by organising tournaments which is Inter-District, Inter Zonal, Inter-School and Inter-Association matches, to educate young sportsmen in the game and to regulate and control the game of cricket and also to impart to physical education through the medium of cricket. We find that the assessee-association only existed for the purpose to develop the game of the

14 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

cricket in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the main character of the assessee is a charitable in nature. So far as conducting international matches on behalf of the BCCI is concerned, it is secondary or incidental to achieve the main object. Therefore, in our opinion, the dominant object of the assessee is to only develop the game of the cricket and not to carry any business activity directly or indirectly in the activities related trade, commerce, business. Therefore, assessee is entitled for claim of exemption under section 11 and section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 23. Further, it is noticed that Hon'ble. ITAT, Chennai held in the case of Tamilnadu Cricket Association Vs. DDIT(Exemption) (2015) 60 taxmann.com 287 (Chennai-Trib) that the activity of conducting one day matches, T20 matches and IPL matches does not amount to doing business or trade since the said matches are organised and conducted by the BCCI and the State Cricket Association only hosts the matches which are conducted by the BCCI by providing the stadium for conducting the matches, It was he'd that it cannot be said that the State Cricket Association is conducting any business activity of providing any servicer in the nature of trade, commerce or business. It was held that the proviso to sec: 2(15) is therefore not applicable and the State Cricket Association is eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act.

15 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

16 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

difference. From the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we observe that subsequent to the completion of assessment, the assessee has taken up the issue to the notice of the BCCI with regard to mistakes in the payments shown to have been made by BCCI to the assessee in Form 26AS. The BCCI has made necessary corrections and the assessee has down loaded the revised Form 26AS, wherein, the receipts in BCCI were reported at Rs.41,54,08,993/- against the receipts shown in Form 26AS at Rs.50,56,78,635/-. The assessee filed rectification petition before the AO explaining that there was no short admission of receipts from the BCCI, since Rs.37,74,16,941/- was credited to the Income and Expenditure account and the infrastructure subsidy of Rs.5,16,67,017/- was taken directly to Balance Sheet, thus, the receipts as per Form 26AS and the receipts admitted by the assessee in Income and Expenditure account and the Balance Sheet together constitute the same amount. Rectification petition filed by the assessee was rejected by the AO since the appeal was preferred by the assessee before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after examining the revised Form 26AS allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) has also observed that even after including the infrastructure subsidy amounting to Rs.5,16,67,017/- as income in the hands of the assessee, the amount applied for charitable purposes is found to be higher than the

17 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

income of the assessee and consequently held that the entire income of the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract para No.37 to 39 of the CIT(A) order which reads as under :

“37. On perusal of the revised Form 26AS dated 29.01.2019 which was furnished by the assessee to the AO along with the rectification application, it is noticed that the receipts from BCCI are reflected therein at Rs.41,54,08,993/- and TDS thereon is shown at Rs.83,44,858/-, as against the receipts from BCCI of Rs.50,56,78,635/- and the TDS thereon of Rs.1,00,90,251/- considered by the AO in the assessment order based on original Form 26AS. The revised Form 26AS cannot be disregarded by the AO on the ground that the assessee did not explain the reason for the corrections made by BCCI and that no confirmation letter or any other evidence from BCCI has been furnished. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the TDS information in Form 26AS is generated by the Income Tax Department based on the TDS returns filed by the deductors and the assessee has no control over the same. The information available in Form 2'6AS has to be taken into consideration by the AO without placing any burden on the assessee to .prove the veracity of the said information uploaded by the deductors. On the contrary, where the assessee disputes the veracity of the receipts reflected in Form 26AS, the onus is on the revenue to lead evidence that the assessee was actually in receipt of the said income reflected in Form 26AS. Hence, it, is held that the revised, Form 26AS is required to be taken into - consideration for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any short admission of receipts from BCCI.

18 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

the assessee treated the same as a capital receipt and credited the said receipt to the Infrastructure subsidy account in the balance sheet. The said receipt was therefore not included in the income of the assessee society which is required to be applied for charitable purposes. The said treatment is not in accordance with the provisions of law since the corpus donations alone are exempt from being included in the income of the trust, which is required to be applied for charitable purposes. Since the infrastructure subsidy received from BCCI is not in the nature of a corpus donation, the same is required to be included in the income of the assessee society. Notwithstanding the -same; it is noticed that even after inclusion of the said Infrastructure subsidy in the income of the assessee, the amount applied for charitable purposes as debited to the Income & Expenditure account is found to be higher than the income of the assessee and consequently, the entire income of the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11.” 9.1. We observe from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the difference between the receipts from Form 26AS and the receipts declared by the assessee were duly considered by the Ld.CIT(A). After necessary corrections, the gross receipts as per Form 26AS from BCCI were at Rs.41,54,08,993/-, out of which Rs.5,16,67,017/- was taken directly to the Balance Sheet and the balance amount of Rs.36,74,16,941/- was credited to Income & Expenditure account. Thus, the receipts admitted by the assessee in the expenditure statement and the amounts taken to balance sheet totaling Rs.41,54,08,993/- tallies with receipts in Form 26AS. Thus, we find that there was no difference in the receipts declared by the assessee and the receipts as per Form 26AS in respect of BCCI. The Ld.CIT(A) also given a finding that even infrastructure subsidy amounting to Rs.5,16,67,017/- received from BCCI which was taken to balance sheet is

19 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

treated as income of the assessee, the amount applied for charitable purposes is higher than the income of the assessee and allowable for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Form 26AS is a statement which is also available to the AO. Further the assessee filed rectification petition before the AO during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. Instead of examining the correctness of 154 petition, it is seen that the AO rejected the petition on the plea of pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). When there is prima facie mistake, it is the obligation of the AO to rectify the mistake, even though the appeal is pending before the appellate authorities and submit the copy of rectification order for further action of Ld.CIT(A). Instead, the AO rejected the rectification petition, hence, AO should not have any grievance for further opportunity. Ld.CIT(A) is empowered to verify the corrections and decide the issue. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has examined the issue and found that there was no short admission of receipts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly, ground No.(iii) of the revenue is dismissed.

20 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

paragraphs that the assessee has filed 154 petition furnishing the complete details, which, the AO has rejected for the reason that the appeal was pending. Since the issue was already placed before the AO and the AO has rejected the assessee’s petition for rectification we, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly ground No.(iv) is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd November 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBERलेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER नवशधखधपटणम /Visakhapatnam नदनधंक /Dated : 23.11.2020 L.Rama, SPS

21 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. रधजस्व/The Revenue - Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Exemptions Circle, Vijayawada 2. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee – M/s Andhra Cricket Association, D.No.60-8-8, 5th lane, Siddartha Nagar, Vijayawada 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada 5. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्डफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam