VERSOVA KOKNI SUNNI JAMAT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO, (E) (2)(4), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

All donations are genuine and bonafide.

Without prejudice to the earlier grounds. Appellant is assessed as an AOP and no exemption has been allowed u/s.11 hence the expenditure of the AOP may be allowed as a deduction.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has been assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP), and no exemption under Section 11 of the Income- tax Act has been granted when the entire receipts are assessed as business income and consequently, the expenditure incurred during the year in connection with such receipts may be allowed as business expenditure which is part of the receipt and expenditure. Without prejudice to the grounds raised earlier Appellant is assessed as an AOP, and the donation received is not chargeable to tax.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has been assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP), and hence the donation received by the AOP is not chargeable to tax. Without prejudice to the grounds raised earlier Appellant is assessed as an AOP. The donation received is treated as Business Income, then expenditure incurred during the year in connection with such receipts should be allowed as a deduction 3 10 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has been assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP), and donation received treated as business income, then expenditure in the form of depreciation of Rs.9,00,164/- and other ancillary expenditure such as establishment expenses, audit fees, may be allowed as expenditure.”

4. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. At the very outset, our attention was drawn to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in AY 2015-16 in by which, the Co-ordinate Bench has restored the quarrel to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh as per the directions given therein. Since the facts and circumstances are pari materia the same, we find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench in AY 2015-16 (supra), has held as under:- “After rival submissions are heard, the Bench has observed that it is an undisputed fact that no details were furnished before Ld. CIT(A) despite the hearing notices were sent to 5 email ids mentioned in the return of income. The cases-law relied upon the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case because in those cases, the appellant has submitted all the details and decisions were taken accordingly. In the impugned case, there was no compliance to the questionnaire issued by Ld. CIT(A) and hence an adverse inference was taken by him while adjudicating the appeal. Anyhow, taking a lenient view, the Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the appellant trust, as requested by Ld. AR of the appellant to submit all the details before Ld. CIT(A). The Bench has observed that only one opportunity was given by Ld. CIT(A) and then the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of this facts and peculiar circumstances, the matter is remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to given the appellant an effective opportunity and dispose of the appeal. The appellant is also directed to cooperate with the Department and furnish all relevant particulars and help them in expediting the appeal.”