SRI PONNIAH RAMAJAYATHAMMAL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3360/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 January 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had recorded any findings regarding the deletion of assets and the accumulation. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions on sale of assets and disallowance of accumulation. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) and AO did not provide proper findings or reasons for these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities provided adequate findings and reasons for making additions on sale of assets and disallowing accumulation under Section 11(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(2),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 09.12.2021Pronounced: 24.01.2022

O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in vide order dated 17.10.2019. The assessment was framed by the ACIT(Exemptions), Coimbatore for the assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 31.03.2015 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).

2.

At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) finding is only one liner in regard to addition on sale of assets, which reads as under:- “Consideration received on sale of the asset is real income and should form part of the total income of the trust for the purpose of section 11. Hence the addition of Rs.1,23,25,081/- is upheld.”

1.

As regards to accumulation u/s.11(2) of the Act, the finding of CIT(A) is as under:- “7.3.2 In the present appeal, there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee trust did not specify the purpose of accumulation in the Form No.10.

Hence respectfully following the above stated decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, the disallowance of benefit u/s.11(2) is upheld.”

He took us to the order of AO and stated that there is no discussion about deletion of assets amounting to Rs.1,23,25,081/- and purpose for the accumulation for an amount of Rs.15,87,915/-, which is added and brought to tax. The ld.AR stated that once there is no adjudication by the CIT(A), the matter has to go back to CIT(A) for giving actual finding and for allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

Per contra, when these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he fairly agreed that matter can be restored back to the file of the AO.

4.

After hearing both the sides and going through facts, we noticed neither the CIT(A) nor AO has recorded any finding as regards to deletion of assets of Rs.1,23,25,081/- and accumulation of Rs.15,87,915/-. Once there is no finding or reason given for making additions, we are of the view that matter may be restored back to the original file i.e., the AO. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the court on 24th January, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 11(2)

All 762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →